Des deutschen Außenministers erster Besuch im Nahen Osten ist Anlass für die ZEIT, einmal mehr einen ihrer Autoren standesgemäß auf der Titelseite über die deutsch-israelische „Freundschaft“ schwadronieren zu lassen. Dieses Mal fällt die Ehre Michael Thumann zu, seines Zeichens als Freund islamischer Autokratien und moralischer Relativist wohlbekannt.

Schon in der Unterüberschrift von Thumanns Kommentar wird dabei gute alte deutsche Hausmannskost feilgeboten:

Israels Sicherheit ist Teil der deutschen Staatsräson. Aber Freundschaft muss auch Widerspruch ertragen können.

Das liest sich nicht nur so, als sei das Hirn mit Sauerkraut verstopft und die Gedanken durch die Gulaschkanone geschossen worden, sondern ist auch genau so gemeint.

Ausgangspunkt stellt Thumanns – bereits überaus gewagte – These einer „bemerkenswerten Nähe“ zwischen Deutschland und Israel dar, „die Deutschland sonst nur mit Ländern wie Frankreich und wenigen anderen Länern teilt“. Die wichtigste Frage sei nun, so Thuman, was sich denn aus der „deutschen Staatsräson“, diesem unermüdlichen Einsatz für Israels Sicherheit, ganz konkret für Konsequenzen für Deutschland ergäben:

Merkel gibt Israel Deutschlands Wort, eine Garantie in der gefährlichsten Region der Welt, dem Nahen Osten. Was heißt das für uns?

Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass Israel nicht nur der Staat der vom – persistenten, weltweit und insbesondere in der „muslimischen Welt“ verbreiteten – Antisemitismus Verfolgten und Bedrohten, sondern auch die einzige Demokratie im Nahen Osten ist, ist schon die Frage selbst skandalös. Wer die nicht nur notwendige, sondern gebotene Solidarität mit dem Staat Israel an den Folgen für das eigene Handeln misst, diskreditiert sich zwar selbst, hat aber dennoch – oder vielmehr: genau deshalb – gute Chancen, auf der Titelseite der auflagenstärksten deutschen Wochenzeitung zu publizieren, für die Linke im Bundestag zu sitzen oder sich in leitender Position der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung zu widmen.

Lässt man sich wider besseren Wissens und die Vernunft nicht nur vergessend, sondern verratend, sich also – zumindest was Letzteres . betrifft, ganz als klassischer ZEIT-Leser ausgebend, auf Thumanns Gedankengänge ein, bekommt man das vorgesetzt, was zu Erwarten war.

Thumann diskutiert drei Probleme der israelischen Außenpolitik, die er in ihrer Bedeutung als „Tests“ für Deutschland diskutiert. Der erste “Test” sei der „Paukenschlag“ aus Jerusalem, „der jeden Frieden infrage stellt“: „neue Wohnungen in der jüdischen Siedlung Gilo – auf palästinensischem Gebiet.“ Vermutlich ist es lediglich einem redigierenden Praktikanten geschuldet, dass der Satz etwas überraschend nur mit einem Punkt und nicht wie zu erwarten wäre mit drei Ausrufungszeichen endet. Fest steht in jedem Fall, dass Thumanns Empörung ebenso geheuchelt wie faktenresistent ist: weder beschwert er sich über den Neubau von 5000 arabischen Wohnungen in Jerusalem, noch interessiert ihn, dass sich Gilo keinesfalls auf „palästinensischem Gebiet“, sondern in Jerusalem, befindet, ganz gleich, wie oft anderes auch behauptet wird.

Den zweiten “Test” macht Thumann in „Israels scharfe[r] Blockade von Gaza“ aus, die „nun schon über zwei Jahre“ andaure. Thumann verschweigt, dass Israel selbst im Gazakrieg trotz Beschusses der Hamas Lieferungen in den Gaza-Streifen zuließ. Thumann verschweigt auch, dass die „Blockade“ nicht israelischer Willkür, sondern vielmehr islamfaschistischer Mordlust geschuldet war und ist. Doch was braucht die Realität jemanden zu scheren, der so elegant argumentieren kann wie Thumann:

Der Verweis auf die dort [in Gaza, Mr, Moe] herrschende Hamas reicht lange nicht mehr hin. Erstens leben dort Menschen – und zweitens gibt es Steigerungen von Hamas.

Auf Deutsch: Islamfaschistischer Terrorist ist nicht gleich islamfaschistischer Terrorist und Israel darf nicht versuchen, den Raketenbeschuss seiner Zivilbevölkerung zu unterbinden, weil sich auf der Gegenseite doch auch Menschen befänden. Würde diese Logik konsequent – und nicht nur einseitig gegen den jüdischen Staat gerichtet – angewandt, wäre nicht nur jeder Waffengang, sondern auch jede Form von wirtschaftlichen oder politischen Sanktionen rigoros abzulehnen. Diese Auffassung kann man gewiss vertreten – so man denn gewillt ist, sein eigenes Leben und das Leben anderer Menschen den Vertretern totalitärer Ideologien zu opfern. Zudem schreibt sich so etwas natürlich auch einfacher, wenn man wie Thumann nicht in Sderot, sondern im sicheren Istanbul – und bisweilen von deutschen Lesern finanziert und arabischen Diktatoren hofiert in Damaskus – lebt.

Angesichts der ungeheuerlichen und menschenverachtenden Politik Israels hat Thumann auch eine konkrete Handlungsaufforderung für die deutsche Regierung parat:

Die Bundesregierung sollte auf das schnelle Ende der Blockade drängen.

Warum Thumann dieses Drängen nur gegenüber Israel, nicht jedoch gegenüber Ägypten fordert, bleibt sein Geheimnis – vermutlich hat es irgendetwas mit jener besonders engen Freundschaft Deutschlands mit Israel zu tun.

Überaus aufschlussreich ist überdies, was Thumann als dritten „Test“ ausmacht:

Irans Präsident Ahmadinedschad verdammt Israel und baut, so sieht es aus, an der Atombombe.

Nebst dem Euphemismus „verdammt“ – richtig wäre: “droht mit Vernichtung” – und der unnötigen Einschränkung der Gewissheit fällt auf, dass Thumann die nukleare Bewaffnung der Islamischen Republik Iran offenbar nicht als existenzielle Bedrohung Israels oder Gefahr für die freie Welt ansieht, sondern lediglich als „Test“ für die deutsche Regierung, quasi eine Fingerübung für zwischendurch. Dass Merkel sich vor dem US-Kongress – zumindest verbal – unzweifelhaft auf die Seite Israels gestellt hat, bereitet Thumann hierbei große Sorge:

Wenn es zum Krieg zwischen Iran und Israel käme, so wäre dies die ultimative Prüfung von Merkels Versprechen. Würde Deutschland dann aufseiten Israels in einen Konflikt eingreifen? Es ist zweifelhaft, ob wir diesen Test bestehen würden. Nicht nur deshalb gehört es vor allem zur Staatsräson Deutschlands, diesen Konflikt, den großen Nahostkrieg abzuwenden.

Ansonsten stets mit dem Holzhammer hantierend, zweifelt Thumann hier an, was zweifelsfrei feststeht: Natürlich würde Deutschland nicht aufseiten Israels in einen Konflikt eingreifen, dafür sorgen nicht zuletzt Journalisten vom Schlage Thumanns. Gesteht man Thumann jedoch für einen kurzen Moment zu, eine iranische Atombombe – und sei es einzig und allein aus Eigeninteresse – wirklich verhindern und den „großen Nahostkrieg“ abwenden zu wollen, lautet sein Vorschlag:

Dazu muss man das kleine Einmaleins der Nahostrhetorik beherrschen. Ahmadineschad liebt markige Worte seiner Gegner. Dann kann er im Gegenzug um islamische Solidarität heischen, die arabische Straße aufhetzen, vor allem bei den US-Verbündeten Saudi-Arabien und Ägypten. Konfrontation ist sein Lebenselixier. Offene Drohungen mit dem Knüppel, wie Benjamin Netanjahu sie schätzt, sind kontraproduktiv. Gerade der mögliche Angriff aus dem Westen bestärkt die Iraner, atomwaffenfähiges Uran anzureichern.

Thumann verschweigt geflissentlich, dass es sich bei Ahmadinedschads Worten keinesfalls nur um bloße „Rhetorik“ und leere Worte handelt. Nein: der iranische Präsident meint, was er sagt, und er sagt, was er meint. Das Streben der Islamischen Republik Iran nach Nuklearwaffen ist nicht den “offenen Drohungen” Israels oder gar einem – schön wäre es! – “möglichen Angriff aus dem Westen” geschuldet, sondern elementarer Bestandteil islamfaschistischer Ideologie. Dies ignorierend schlägt Thumann hingegen folgende Strategie für den Umgang mit dem Iran vor:

Gefragt ist daher kluger, nicht krachender Gegendruck. Nur wenn die Angriffsdrohung wegfällt, besteht die Chance, Iran noch zu einem Atomkompromiss zu bewegen. Davon sollten die Deutschen Israel überzeugen.

Vielleicht glaubt Thumann ja entgegen jeglicher Erfahrung und Vernunft wirklich, dass die Appeasement-Politik gegenüber der Islamischen Republik Iran weiter fortgeführt werden muss und das immer noch nicht genug Zugeständnisse gegenüber Teheran gemacht wurden. Vielleicht glaubt Thumann auch wirklich, dass einem Freund, dessen Leben von einem Dritten bedroht wird, am Besten durch Kritik des eigenen Handelns gedient sei.

Vielleicht handelt es sich bei Thumanns Worten aber auch einfach nur um einen Ausdruck jener Spielart des Antisemitismus, mit der man im Jahr 2009 in Deutschland Zeitungen in hunderttaussendfacher Auflage verkaufen kann.

(An old union buddy of mine wrote the following column in his local paper.  He has graciously agreed to let me re-post it here.)

The Iranian regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today poses a grave and imminent threat to world peace. A wealthy nation, led by apocalyptic anti-Semitic fanatics committed to the eradication of a neighboring nation, is rapidly developing the weapons that will put that goal within its reach.

The whole world knows it; indeed, Iran barely bothers to deny it.

The Iranian regime is and has always been an avowed and implacable enemy of both Israel and of our own country. Their hatred of us and their desire to destroy Israel are not new. What is new is their development of the weapons needed to accomplish their goal of a Jew-free Middle East.

There can be no mistake; the Iranian regime is preparing for its “Final Solution” to the problem of Israel – nothing less than a Second Holocaust. Their denial of Nazi genocide is a smokescreen to distract attention from their plans to out-murder Hitler. With a weapon that Hitler could only dream of, Iran will have instant genocide – the extermination of 6 million Israeli Jews in a single day – at their fingertips.

Diplomacy and sanctions have been tried and have not worked. China (politely) and Russia (rudely) have made it clear (repeatedly) that they will oppose or sabotage serious sanctions. Sanctions will not work under such circumstances.

The Iranians have played the diplomacy game to the hilt, engaging in endless talks while ceaselessly working on their weapons program. They have adhered to Will Rogers’ cynical definition of diplomacy as “Saying ‘nice doggy’ in a soothing voice while stooping to pick up a rock.” They know that time is on their side; they have learned the North Korean lesson that once they demonstrate that they have nuclear weapons, world pressure will avail nothing against them.

So they will continue to play the game, running out the clock while their centrifuges spin day and night. In this situation, and given the demonstrated nature of the regime, it would be the height of irresponsible folly to set further meaningless timelines. If a last diplomatic offer is made, it must contain a deadline measured in days, not months.

For the 30 years since the Iranian Revolution, Israel has been our staunchest ally and Iran our most implacable enemy. That ally now stands threatened with extinction from that enemy. We cannot hesitate to act.

The failure of the previous and current U.S. administrations to deal with this threat have left very few options on the table. In the face of continued Iranian intransigence, some form of military action, such as surgical air strikes to disrupt the Iranian weapons program, may be the only course remaining. If Israel is ready to act in its own defense, we should offer them our full support and assistance.

Military action must be a last resort; its cost is high and its success uncertain. But the cost of continued failure to act is clear and will be terrible. “Learning to live with a nuclear Iran,” as some “realists” propose, is in reality learning to live with genocide.

Seven decades ago, an aggressive and fanatical dictator threatened both the peace of Europe and the Jews of Europe. The powers that could have stopped him chose instead to try to appease him. Appeasement did not work then and it will not work now.

For more information on the Iran threat, I recommend:

Middle East Media Research Institute, at www.memri.org, and United Against Nuclear Iran at www.uani.com.

Now its “Der Spiegel” making with the Carter comparisons.

Meanwhile,President Obama’s Mission to hug everybody in the world in order to prove he is not George Bush has opened a new problem:

Brazil Elbows U.S. on the Diplomatic Stage
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO

BRASÍLIA — Brazil’s ambitions to be a more important player on the global diplomatic stage are crashing headlong into the efforts of the United States and other Western powers to rein in Iran’s nuclear arms program.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president, is set to receive Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, here on Monday in his first state visit to Brazil. The visit is part of a larger push by Mr. da Silva to wade into the seemingly intractable world of Middle East politics, and follows visits in the last two weeks by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, and Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority.

But the visit is drawing criticism from lawmakers and former diplomats here and in the United States, who say it could undercut Western efforts to press Iran on its nuclear program, and consequently chill Brazil’s relations with the United States and damage its growing reputation as a global power.

…“This state visit is a gross error, a terrible mistake,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. “He is illegitimate with his own people, and Brazil is now going to give him the air of legitimacy at a time when the world is trying to figure out how to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. It makes no sense to me, and it tarnishes the image of Brazil, quite frankly.”

But stop, hold on! If it is good enough for President Obama, why not Da Silva? Or so says the State Department:

But Mr. da Silva’s overture to Iran is consistent with President Obama’s policy of engagement, and the Obama administration says it is optimistic that the meeting will not damage and at best could reinforce the efforts already under way by Washington and European powers to deal with Iran.

“We would hope that all our friends and allies would understand that this is really a critical moment for Iran itself,” Ian C. Kelly, a State Department spokesman, said Thursday. “We would hope that Brazil would play a constructive role in trying to get Iran to do the right thing and fulfill its international obligations.”

Yes we all have hope….. a new beer sumit?

Obama Bows Before Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao…

How many more will this deceitful sack of s%#t bow to. He should be bowing to the American people instead of trampling them underfoot. I did not and won’t bother verifying the authenticity of this photo but it came from a reliable source and given Obama’s track record seems more plausible than not..

Back in May of 2008, I wrote about the danger of appeasement that the election of a liberal Democrat to the presidency posed.

The trend of American casualties had been increasing, without question, but we have NEVER seen the kind of DOUBLING of fatalities (we’re now at 293 American fatalities, versus 155 last year, with more than a month to go) that we are seeing now under Obama’s leadership.  That’s because the Taliban and the terrorists now know that we have a dithering, indecisive, vacillating and appeasing weakling in the White House whom they will be able to push around.

And apparently their piling on is paying off big as “the leader of the free world” cringes before them.

This story is only coming from a single source in Saudi Arabia, but, if true, it means we’re at Neville Chamberlain’s level of disgusting appeasement in exchange for a psuedo “peace in our time” all over again.

Afghan Source: The U.S. Has Offered the Taliban Control in Return for Quiet

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement’s foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

Source: Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), November 22, 2009

Even going back to April of last year, the Democrat presidential debates displayed a frightening ignorance of history, which would invariably lead to appeasement and – following the pattern, more demanding and stubborn enemies who sensed our weakness -  if their policies were ever implemented:

As a student of history, I remember the abject failure of the Western allies to grasp the growing threat of their enemies throughout the 1930s. I remember the refusal of the liberal governments of the Allied powers to comprehend what are now known to have been fundamental realities of naked aggression and looming war. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain abandoned his country’s commitment to Czechoslovakia with a promise from Hitler of peace. The liberal, “anti-war” Chamberlain returned home saying, “I believe it is peace in our time!” Chamberlain saw Britain’s policy as a willingness to compromise and a desire for peace. But Hitler saw only weakness, hesitation, and cowardice, and became emboldened for total war. Again and again, the West had had an opportunity to demonstrate its genuine resolve to Hitler, and again and again the West had failed to stand.

In our present day, the Democratic Party has demonstrated a shocking degree of treachery in regard to Iraq. It is their war as much as it is Republicans’ war – because it should be America’s war.

History repeats itself because we keep putting the same sort of moral cowards in power.

Note that I was referring to Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, in my above warning.  Why?  Because the Democrats were talking tough about Afghanistan, even as they talked about walking away from Iraq.  Who could have known that a Democrat would so violate his own promises and be so shockingly weak in a war that he himself said was a “must win”? I fully believed that Barack Obama would be a weakling and an appeaser in office; but I simply had no idea that he would be as pathetically weak as he has actually revealed himself to be.

Thankfully, George Bush’s surge strategy in Iraq worked – and worked so well that even Obama’s weakness hasn’t been able to turn the success in Iraq around.  Barack Obama opposed that strategy and said it would fail.  And when he was proven wrong, this weakling and coward merely deleted his wrong, deceitful, and malicious prediction from his web site.

Obama’s dithering (and that’s the term Pentagon officials used, rather than merely Dick Cheney, btw), have 1) emboldened the enemy, 2) undermined American troop morale, 3) undermined the confidence of the military that Barack Obama will remain true to his commitment, and 4) weakened the people of Afghanistan’s trust for us all at once.

The last is the worse: the months that Obama has spent cravenly dithering while the resurgent Taliban have spread their control has forced the Afghani people to begin to choose the Taliban – whom will stay the course – over a U.S. under Barack Obama which clearly won’t.  And that means we may have already lost.

And now this?

What do you expect from the president who sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of weakling appeasers just like Obama selling out Poland to Russia?

On top of the defeat in Afghanistan, Obama faces a far more significant defeat in Iran.  Obama is desperate to talk; Iran is determined to build nuclear missiles.  Iran will get become a nuclear military power under Obama’s watch, because the only way to prevent them from becoming such a power is to be willing to go to war with them to stop them – and Iran knows that Obama will not take that step.

As the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Iran manifests itself in the form of increased terrorism, sky-high gas prices, and even nuclear war, just remember: we conservatives tried to warn you.

Update, November 23, 2009: Did I say that 293 U.S. soldiers have been killed so far this year?  Make that 297.  Meanwhile, the survivors are hunkering down and beginning to despair that they are in Afghanistan for no apparent reason while their commander-in-chief dithers around for three months more worried about his own political skin than about his soldiers.

Oliver M. Piecha stellt auf Free Iran Now! die Frage, die vor einiger Zeit schon Bret Stephens im Wall Street Journal quälte: warum weigert sich die Welt im Allgemeinen und die US-Regierung im Speziellen, das wiederholt und unmissverständlich geäußerte „Nein!“ der Islamischen Republik Iran bezüglich eines „Kompromisses“ im Atomkonflikt zur Kenntnis zu nehmen und entsprechende Konsequenzen zu ziehen?

In die gleiche Richtung zielt Thomas von der Osten-Sackens Frage, wo angesichts der gebetsmühlenartig geäußerten “Wir-verhandeln-weiter!”-Parole der US-Regierung in Folge des erneuten Verstreichens eines Ultimatums seitens des Irans denn eigentlich die von der US-Regierung beschworenen „Grenzen der Geduld” liegen.

Wer ernstlich daran interessiert ist, diese Fragen zu beantworten, sollte die folgenden Äußerungen des Appeaser-in-Chief Barack Obama über die Gründe des bislang ausbleibenden Kompromisses aufmerksam lesen:

„We’ve seen indications that for internal political reasons or perhaps because they [the Iranians, Mr. Moe] are stuck in some of their own rhetoric, they are unable to get to ‘yes,’” Mr. Obama said.“

Diese Worte zeigen eindrucksvoll auf, dass Obama das Wesen der Islamischen Republik nach wie vor noch nicht einmal ansatzweise verstanden hat. Es gibt keine mysteriösen „internen politischen Gründe“ oder ein „Feststecken in der eigenen Rhetorik“, dass es Teheran unmöglich machte, auf das verzweifelte Flehen der USA und des Westens einzugehen.

Das Gegenteil ist der Fall: die Islamische Republik Iran geht nicht auf die Kompromissvorschläge ein, weil sie nicht an Kompromissen interessiert ist. Dass Streben nach nuklearer Bewaffnung ist kein Zufall oder Reaktion, sondern mit Notwendigkeit auftretende Konsequenz der sich in der Islamischen Republik Iran manifestierenden khomeinistischen Ideologie.

Der Versuch, die Islamische Republik Iran über den Verhandlungsweg an ihren ultimativen Zielen – dem Judenmord und der weltweiten Herrschaft des Islamfaschismus – zu hindern, ist daher von vornherein zum Scheitern verurteilt. Die Islamische Republik kann per definitionem nicht zur Lösung des Konfliktes beitragen, da die Lösung des Konfliktes einzig und allein in ihrer Auflösung besteht. Ohne diesen Gedanken zu denken und die entsprechende Schritte einzuleiten, ihn Realität werden zu lassen, wird die Bedrohung Israels und der freien Welt fortbestehen.

Die oben gestellten Fragen laufen demnach letztlich auf die Frage hinaus, warum die US-Regierung – von den europäischen Nationen, von denen es ohnehin nicht zu erwarten ist, einmal ganz abgesehen – nicht sieht, was guten Gewissens nicht zu übersehen ist. Diese Frage soll – genauer: kann – hier nicht beantwortet werden.

Jedoch steht gänzlich unabhängig von der Antwort auf die Frage nach dem “warum?” zweifelsfrei fest: die “Grenzen der Geduld” der derzeitigen US-Regierung sind nicht einfach nur weit gefasst, sondern schlichtweg nicht existent. So unglaublich, da zutiefst irrational, es auch sein mag, lassen die Entwicklungen der letzten Wochen und Monaten keinen anderen Schluss zu: Barack Obama und die amtierende US-Regierung haben sich längst mit der Existenz einer iranischen Atombombe abgefunden und werden Israel und die Idee der Freiheit – wenn überhaupt und so es dann überhaupt noch etwas zu verteidigen gibt – erst dann verteidigen, wenn die erste Bombe gefallen ist.

Crossposted auf Zeitung für Schland.

Oliver M. Piecha stellt auf Free Iran Now! die Frage, die vor einiger Zeit schon Bret Stephens im Wall Street Journal quälte: warum weigert sich die Welt im Allgemeinen und die US-Regierung im Speziellen, das wiederholt und unmissverständlich geäußerte „Nein!“ der Islamischen Republik Iran bezüglich eines „Kompromisses“ im Atomkonflikt zur Kenntnis zu nehmen und entsprechende Konsequenzen zu ziehen?

In die gleiche Richtung zielt Thomas von der Osten-Sackens Frage, wo angesichts der gebetsmühlenartig geäußerten “Wir-verhandeln-weiter!”-Parole der US-Regierung in Folge des erneuten Verstreichens eines Ultimatums seitens des Irans denn eigentlich die von der US-Regierung beschworenen „Grenzen der Geduld” liegen.

Wer ernstlich daran interessiert ist, diese Fragen zu beantworten, sollte die folgenden Äußerungen des Appeaser-in-Chief Barack Obama über die Gründe des bislang ausbleibenden Kompromisses aufmerksam lesen:

„We’ve seen indications that for internal political reasons or perhaps because they [the Iranians, Mr. Moe] are stuck in some of their own rhetoric, they are unable to get to ‘yes,’” Mr. Obama said.“

Diese Worte zeigen eindrucksvoll auf, dass Obama das Wesen der Islamischen Republik nach wie vor noch nicht einmal ansatzweise verstanden hat. Es gibt keine mysteriösen „internen politischen Gründe“ oder ein „Feststecken in der eigenen Rhetorik“, dass es Teheran unmöglich machte, auf das verzweifelte Flehen der USA und des Westens einzugehen.

Das Gegenteil ist der Fall: die Islamische Republik Iran geht nicht auf die Kompromissvorschläge ein, weil sie nicht an Kompromissen interessiert ist. Dass Streben nach nuklearer Bewaffnung ist kein Zufall oder Reaktion, sondern mit Notwendigkeit auftretende Konsequenz der sich in der Islamischen Republik Iran manifestierenden khomeinistischen Ideologie.

Der Versuch, die Islamische Republik Iran über den Verhandlungsweg an ihren ultimativen Zielen – dem Judenmord und der weltweiten Herrschaft des Islamfaschismus – zu hindern, ist daher von vornherein zum Scheitern verurteilt. Die Islamische Republik kann per definitionem nicht zur Lösung des Konfliktes beitragen, da die Lösung des Konfliktes einzig und allein in ihrer Auflösung besteht. Ohne diesen Gedanken zu denken und die entsprechende Schritte einzuleiten, ihn Realität werden zu lassen, wird die Bedrohung Israels und der freien Welt fortbestehen.

Die oben gestellten Fragen laufen demnach letztlich auf die Frage hinaus, warum die US-Regierung – von den europäischen Nationen, von denen es ohnehin nicht zu erwarten ist, einmal ganz abgesehen – nicht sieht, was guten Gewissens nicht zu übersehen ist. Diese Frage soll – genauer: kann – hier nicht beantwortet werden.

Jedoch steht gänzlich unabhängig von der Antwort auf die Frage nach dem “warum?” zweifelsfrei fest: die “Grenzen der Geduld” der derzeitigen US-Regierung sind nicht einfach nur weit gefasst, sondern schlichtweg nicht existent. So unglaublich, da zutiefst irrational, es auch sein mag, lassen die Entwicklungen der letzten Wochen und Monaten keinen anderen Schluss zu: Barack Obama und die amtierende US-Regierung haben sich längst mit der Existenz einer iranischen Atombombe abgefunden und werden Israel und die Idee der Freiheit – wenn überhaupt und so es dann überhaupt noch etwas zu verteidigen gibt – erst dann verteidigen, wenn die erste Bombe gefallen ist.

Crossposted auf FREE IRAN NOW!

Moeglicherweise laege es nahe, nun langsam auszusprechen, dass der Iran den Anreicherungskompromiss abgelehnt hat. Immherhin hat der Aussenminister nun gesagt: “Iran will not send its 3.5-percent-enriched uranium out of the country,” ISNA quoted Mottaki as saying on Wednesday. “That means we are considering to exchange the enriched uranium inside Iran,” he went on to explain.

Das heisst doch nein, oder?

“The notion that Iran has not yet responded to the proposal [put forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)] is mere propaganda,” The Iranian minister said, adding that the country had already responded to the agency. “In fact, they want our response to be whatever they dictate to us!” he said.  (Press TV)

Also sie haben nein gesagt. Oder was sonst?

Es duerfte sich amuesant gestalten, wie man diese doch recht deutlichen Worte des iranischen Aussenministers herumbiegen und uminterpretieren wird, damit man bloss keine Konsequenzen ziehen muss.

How low will the new American president go for the world’s royalty?

This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference to a superior.

To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better. Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain’s Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America’s royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago. (See photo here)

Akihito, who turns 76 next month, is the eldest son and fifth child of Emperor Showa, the name given to an emperor and his reign after his death.

Emperor Showa is better known abroad by the life name of Hirohito. He became emperor in 1925 and died in 1989, the longest historically-known rule of the nation’s 125 emperors.

Hirohito presided over his nation’s growth from an undeveloped agrarian economy into the expansionist military power and ally of Nazi Germany of the 1930’s.

And, later, Japan became a global economic giant. Hirohito, along with Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, who authorized the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, were much reviled abroad during World War II.

Historically, debate has simmered over how much of a political puppet Hirohito was to the country’s military before and during the war.

Even after Democrat President Harry Truman ordered the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945, there were strong forces within Japan that wanted to continue to fight the Americans in the spirit of kamikaze suicide pilots.

But Akihito’s father went on national radio, the first time his subjects had ever heard Hirohito’s voice, and without using the inflammatory word “surrender,” pronounced that the country must “accept the unacceptable.” It did.

As the conquering Allied general and then presiding officer of the U.S. occupation, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, decided to allow Japan to keep its emperor as a ceremonial unifying institution within a nascent democracy.

Tojo, on the other hand, was hanged.

MacArthur treated Emperor Hirohito respectfully but, as his body language in this black and white postwar photo demonstrates, was not particularly deferential.

(But then MacArthur was not known as a particularly deferential person, as Truman discovered just before firing him later. But that’s another war.)

Akihito was born during Japan’s conquering of China and was evacuated during the devastating American fire-bombing of Tokyo, which was built largely of wood in those days.

The future emperor learned English during the U.S. occupation, but, inexplicably, his father ordered that his oldest boy not receive an Army commission as previous imperial heirs always had.

Akihito assumed the throne on Jan. 7, 1989. Within weeks he began a series of formal expressions of remorse to Asian countries for Japan’s actions during his father’s reign. In 2003, he underwent surgery for prostate surgery.

In 1959, Akihito married Michiko Shoda, the first commoner allowed to enter the Japanese royal family. That was two years before the birth of Akihito’s future presidential guest, Barack Obama.

Joe Biden was already 17 by then. But he wasn’t a senator.

– Andrew Malcolm

No bowing necessary here. Just click here to get Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot. And we’re also over here on Facebook.

Photo: Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty; Reuters (Obama bows to the king of Saudi Arabia earlier this year); U.S. Army Archives (Gen. Douglas MacArthur not bowing to Emperor Hirohito after World War II).

Source.  There is no level to which Obama will sink to when it comes to bowing to world leaders, two bit dictators and terrorist leaders. But then again this is the same creepy crawler who held his hand over his heart for the Russian national anthem but not for ours.

Leon de Winter zeigt schonungslos, wie und warum die Diplomatie im Umgang mit der Islamischen Republik Iran versagt hat:

The Europeans could have confronted the mullahs, but after two devastating world wars they have lost the ability to actively defend their interests. They cannot absorb the prospect of the ultimate sacrifice of their sons. And since the Vietnam War, America’s room to operate is regulated by the liberal media, which is deeply influenced by European cultural relativism and secular pacifism. As a result, players who are aware of these characteristics of modern Western societies (i.e., Vladimir Putin, the Arab dictators, and the mullahs in Tehran) calculate their steps in sync with the limitations of Western modi operandi.

The project of the Shiite bomb has spread over so many sites that only a devastating attack by American forces could make an end of it, with terrible collateral damage. The Israelis can only execute some tactical destruction, in the hope that it will delay the project.

The Europeans were never serious in stopping the mullahs. They only have “soft power” in their arsenal, because the liberal European ideology has no chapter about European exceptionalism, European idealism, European ability to bleed, sweat, and suffer for its own sacred values and traditions. The Europeans, concerned about oil imports, commercial interests in Iran, and the loss of influence in Tehran to Moscow and Beijing, fear Israeli action more than an Iranian bomb. President Obama, who would have been an excellent editorial writer for the Guardian, is even more European than the Europeans.

Well, they got what they were looking for.

Die Schlussfolgerung ist eindeutig:

It has never made sense to talk to the mullahs. It is their core business to confuse and mislead, create chaos, kill opponents, torture students, organize terrorism, and weaken Western resolve. They do what they do because they are defined by it. If they were to stop what they are doing, they would give up their identity and the soul of the Shiite revolution. The mullahs are close to fulfilling the central dream of Imam Khomeini’s revolution: a weapon that can destroy Israel and undermine Western nations.

It’s too late. The mullahs won. Only the desperate and heroic people in the streets of Iran can turn the tide.

Warum, erklärt Con Coughlin im Wall Street Journal:

Five months after the first street protests against the sham re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rocked the regime to its core, it’s time to assess the Obama Administration’s “outstretched hand” policy. From the stalled nuclear talks to the Islamic Republic’s deteriorating human-rights situation, it seems the mullahs have tightened, not unclenched, their fists.

No doubt, the conservative hard-liners are under pressure. Mounting international criticism of the regime’s controversial nuclear program and the refusal of the pro-reform movement to submit to the repression have led to an increase in tension among the ruling elite. But rather than compromising, Tehran has resorted to the kind of repression and coercion that have helped turn Iran into an international pariah during the three decades since the Islamic revolution brought the ayatollahs to power. [Weiterlesen...]

Transcript of Fox News “Fox and Friends” for 30^th September 1938

Today’s Special Topic: Chamberlain, The Munich Agreement and Appeasement

Gretchen Carlson: Here today, we’ve assembled a special panel to look at some momentous news from Great Britain where the Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has just returned from his historic meeting with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. I’m joined by William Kristol, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limburgh and of course my co-host Brian Kilmeade. Bill, just to get us started, what’s your take on Prime Minister Chamberlain as a leader?

Bill O’Reilly: Well, he’s a leader the world can respect. Chamberlain is not one of these liberals like Roosevelt who is always talking about protecting the immigrants and trade unions. Just quietly, I suspect that democrat FDR is homosexual and will soon be legalising abortion. No, Chamberlain is a strong, religious man, and as you said, a Conservative, so he has a firm moral base and knows the difference between right and wrong, unlike the French. The French are always trying to stir up trouble those cheese eating fighting monkeys.

William Kristol: I agree Bill, Chamberlain’s a principled type of guy who understands what Hitler is doing, and essentially that is merely claiming back that which rightfully belongs to the Germans. So Chamberlain’s done the right thing in signing the Munich Agreement. It would be completely different if that warmonger Churchill had his way. He’s changed political parties time and time again. He’s a flip flopper.

Gretchen: What about the “alleged” mistreatment of the Jews by the Germans?

Bill O’Reilly: Aren’t we making just a little too much of this Jew thing? Look, it’s only been a little burning of some books—who reads anyway?—I know no-one on this panel does. Apart from the books, there’s been maybe a few broken shop windows. I suspect they may be doing it themselves to cause trouble. Besides, all that glass breaking will be like a stimulus package for the glaziers, so it’s a good thing.

Rush Limburgh (yelling): The Jews can bail out themselves – no more bailouts for anyone, that’s what I say. And Austria, they speak German, so they’re practically German anyway, right? Just like Canada is practically American. So, Anschluss away, we’re all Germans today!!!

Glenn Beck: I’m just so glad that a conservative is in power in Britain. A liberal would probably have tried to stop Hitler. I mean, if we don’t have Hitler, who’s going to stop the socialists? Certainly not that Red-enabler Roosevelt. Where are our freedoms going? *Sniff*

Brian Kilmeade: Well, I’m not much of a student of history, as you may have realised from many of my comments over the last five years, but I think we made a big mistake sending black athletes to the 1936 Olympics two years ago. That was Roosevelt’s fault and our relations with Germany have suffered ever since. Think of the financial consequences.

Rush Limburgh: Absolutely. Sending those uppity blacks was just an insult to this fine conservative German leader. Roosevelt has now given them jobs that our fine citizens could be doing instead. Germany’s trains all run on time and how many negroes work on their transport system?

Gretchen: Hitler is saying that he’s not interested in any more land beyond the Sudetenland but a lot of people do worry about German bellicosity given the way that Hitler’s forces bombed the Spanish back in 1936.

Bill O’Reilly: Those that got bombed were communists and socialists – Hitler did the right thing. And that no talent Hemingway – he’s just like those shit-stirrer actors – what do they know about politics? Bomb them all! Dago terrorists!

Brian Kilmeade: So, we all agree, appeasement was the right thing to do?

William Kristol: Yes, that piece of paper will end up in a museum one day celebrating this great non-liberal, freedom lover.

Gretchen: You look like you’re tearing up a bit there Glenn. Tissue?

Glenn Beck (crying): I’m sorry, I just love my country… I just… *sniff* … every time I see Chamberlain walking from that plane and waving it, you know. And that phrase—“Peace in our time”—will always be a reminder of what truly great peacemakers that conservative politicians are. Conservative. Conservative. Right wing. Freedom™.

Gretchen: I’m sorry, I’ll have to stop you there Glenn as we’re almost out of time. Bill O’Reilly… a last word from you?

Bill O’Reilly: What’s that!?!?! I don’t even know what that means? WHAT?!?! FUCK IT! I’LL DO IT LIVE! I’LL DO IT LIVE!

Sounds of smashing glass and splintering wood in the studio.

Share

This is by now a forgotten classic, but it needs to be preserved in this forum for all posterity: Chris Matthews, on Hardball, reveals the utter ignorance of a Republican talking head.

Bleh, I’m stuck at home for an upper respirator infection.   Not feeling good.

I’ve been stuck at home to ride this out, and, as my wierd little mind works, I’ve been mulling over the word sick.

After the act of terrorism, I got to thinking that I’m sick of America being attacked.

I’m sick of Obama apologizing for America.

I’m sick of Muslims sitting by and refusing to step in an condemn the attacks.

And I’m sick of the ineptitude of this administration in handling these attacks.

I didn’t like how Clinton and Reno treated terrorism as a police action.  As the terrorists began running up the pressure, the attack on the USS Cole et Al., we began to see the futility of trying to arrest criminals.

I’m not blaming Clinton for 9/11.  I don’t know if 9/11 would have happened no matter what we do.  I just have to wonder if we could have had a greater chance at stopping it, if we could have stopped it at all.

Why is Obama apologizing for our “arrogance”?  We’ve made mistakes.  Other countries have also made mistakes also.  We’re all on equal ground when it comes to the world stage.  In my opinion, there are nations out there that are far more arrogant than we’ll ever be.

I think our “arrogance” extends from who we are.  We are a nation of individuals.  We believe in individual rights and individual duties.  We believe that for evil to thrive, a man only has to stand by and do noting.  We reject the idea that we are infants who must be taken care of.

Perhaps I’m just not thinking through this as I should be.  Our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are not only inalieanable, but inherit and enduring within each man, woman and child.  While I understand the need and tendencies to move towards a society where we’re all taken care of, I don’t understand the ability to ignore facts, logic and reason.  I don’t understand how people can dream of a place in which no effort is rewarded.  I don’t understand how people can encourage sloth and discourage determination.  We’re all equal?  Give Timmy a trophy even if he loses?  What about those who did win?  Haven’t we just kicked them in the head and sent the message that their accomplishment isn’t worth notation?

Here, let me define arrogance for you.  Arrogance is thinking you know what is best for your neighbor.  Arrogance is believing that we are somehow inherently different and detatched from other animals, that we can’t learn lessons from our dog or cat.  Arrogance is taking it upon yourself to act in defiance of those you represent.

I’m sick of standing by in mute dissapointment as attack after attack occurs without the muslims these terrorists are fighting for defame Islam for them.  Fighting the big satan are you?  With each and every attack that we absorb, more and more Americans are having trouble believeing that Islam is a religion of peace.  With the silence from the Muslim community, I have to wonder in the silent recesses of my mind if that silence isn’t mute approval of what’s occuring.

Has America been arrogant?  Perhaps.  Even probably.  But, that arrogance has saved our bacon more than one time.

Effective diplomacy doesn’t happen around the White Hose lawn drinking beer and yucking it up.  Effective diplomacy is being the biggest, baddest bastard on the planet and daring the other nations to blink.  We learned that from Kennedy when a steely eyed bluff forced Kruschev to back off the Cuban Missle Crisis.  We learned that from Regan and his unmovable iron will tore down the Berlin Wall and the USSR along with it.

As in nature, there are no equals.  There is simply the strong and the not so strong.  Nobody respects the weak.  When there is no respect, there can be no real diplomacy.

I’m worried people.  In my 31 years and all my reading of history, I’ve never been as worried about America as I am now.  Obama has yet to face his first true crisis of his presidency, and he’s already bumbling.  Can you imagine what would have happened if he had been the one that had “America is under attack” whispered in his ear?

I’m not about to apologize for who I am.  I’m an overinflated, egotistical, bombastic hick with an ego to back it all up.  It’s who I am, and, to be perfectly frank, I’m proud of that.  It’s garnered alot of trouble for me over the years, and turned quite a few people off.  But, I can stand tall and look anybody in the eye and dare them to blink.

So, ask yourself.  Who are you?  Who is America?

God Bless

The Mullahs Big Week by Caroline B. Glick

All in all then, on the surface, this past week seemed like a horrible week for the mullahs. But appearances can be deceiving. Unfortunately and counterintuitively, the past week has been one of the best weeks the mullahs have had for a long, long time. Certainly, it was the best week the Iranian regime has had since it falsified the results of the June 12 presidential elections.

 

The Empire State Strikes Back!!!

I’ve been rather busy the past few days: I spent all hallow’s eve dressed up as Don Draper and/or Chuck Bass (depending on how you viewed my particular sophistication of inebriation and/or debauchery that night) along the streets and boulevards of  a dimly, unnamed city. It was much like any other city and any other night, but it was my city, it was my night. This was duly followed by a 12-hour Guy Fawkes sports viewing marathon, ably aided by anonymous regulated substances- better living through chemistry!- and a feeble attempt to organise whatever shards of lucid thought I had left into digital papyrus. It was somewhat of a bittersweet endeavour, appropriately helped by imbibing Victoria Bitter (just an awesome, proper beverage mind! Doesn’t taste like pissantly pants American supermarket beers but it doesn’t go Soviet on you either-tastes great even when it goes warm and you’re too arsed to get ice cubes nor does it hammer and kick you in the head the next morning with a truly, truly painful hangover and an unknown female bedmate…anyway); the Reds drew with Lyonnais and the great Bosphorus Rafa Benitez was then heaped with more undeserved pressure and criticism from the ignorant media and worse, so-called Liverpool fans who buy into what pundits spit-out.  Good thing however, was that the Yankees, after 9 long fucking years, won their 27th World Series Championship- 9 years for redemption, 9 years to get back to greatness. Very happy for the Core of Four, for A-rod, for Hideki, for my home. The Empire State Strikes Back!!! Start spreading the news, big lights will inspire you, it’s up to you, NEW YORK, NEW YORK!!!

Those things aside, here are two great articles from Slate.com for weekend reading- the first is about the pandering done by Republicans to the populist insanity done by the misinformed/uninformed. As much as  I have characterised Democrats for lacking courage and worse, participating in shameful acts of appeasement, fault and scorn must be given to a lot of Republicans for catering to these idiots, led by those loudmouth, ethos/pathos loving, fear-mongering retards over at some network, who have completely seceded from reason and sense (Yes. That was an Ad hominem, Eminem).

The second article devotes its effort towards a discussion of the reasons behind the fall of the Berlin Wall, its symbolism, mythology and subsequent effects throughout post-Soviet Europe.

http://www.slate.com/id/2234724/

http://www.slate.com/id/2234101/

Enjoy.

(All articles are copyrighted and owned by their authors and Slate.com)

The way in which some countries have dealt with the recent Goldstone report bears a resemblance to the fear that many have of criticising or making fun of the religion of Islam. This seems to indicate that we might just try a bit too hard to appease the most violent among us.

In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken published an article titled “Profound anxiety about criticism of Islam”. The article dealt with writer Kåre Bluitgen, and his struggle to find an illustrator to work on his book “The Qur’an and the Life of the Prophet Muhammad”. Three illustrators turned Bluitgen’s offer down and explained that they were afraid of working on a book on Islam. Apparently, one illustrator cited the murder of the film director Theo van Gogh , who made a film on the treatment of women in Islam and wrote books critical of religion. Another mentioned an attack on a lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen for reading the Qur’an to non-Muslims during a lecture.

The Politiken article sparked an initiative by another Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in which they asked cartoonists to make illustrations of how they saw “the face of the Prophet Muhammad”. The cartoons predictably offended many Muslims worldwide, and details of the massive protests and the arson attacks on the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and the Norwegian embassy in Syria are too horrifying to recount.

The Muhammad cartoon saga was resurrected in 2009, when officials at Yale University Press decided to eliminate reproductions of the cartoons from a book by professor Jytte Klausen. The book was titled “The Cartoons that Shook the World ,”, and was meant to be a scholarly analysis of the cartoons and the motivation for, and the consequences of, their publication. The Yale University Press officials were afraid that a republication of the cartoons would lead to the same violent protests as the original event.

The publication of the cartoons triggered a fierce debate between those who thought that freedom of speech should be upheld at all cost, and those who believed that the cartoons were insensitive to the concerns of Muslims who already felt themselves to be misunderstood, disrespected and under attack by many Western democracies. Insensitivity to the context in which the cartoons were released obviously does not justify the violence of the protests, but it goes some way towards explaining that the violence resulted from an insult sowed in the fertile soil of existing grievances and fears. It is, thus, in part understandable, though no less appalling.

The element of the situation that irk freedom of speech activists the most is the implication that, while everyone else is fair game for jokes and criticism, Muslims need to be excluded. The fact that some Muslims will respond violently to criticism or jokes entitles them to special consideration. In other words, violence pays, since everyone is too scared to make fun of, or criticise, them. After all, Iran’s response to the Danish cartoons was to run a competition to see who could draw the best holocaust denial cartoons. Israel did not react by burning down embassies; in fact, one of their own newspapers ran a contest to discover the best Jew-hating cartoon by a Jewish person. They did not want Iran to beat them at their own game, so the potentially offensive Iranian cartoons spurred them on to make fun of themselves. Compared to violent protests, this is the very healthiest of attitudes.

We should not forget, however, that it is easier for the rich and powerful to take potentially offensive digs from the less powerful than the other way around. But the general point stands that people make fun of other religions much more readily than they do of Islam, because they know that it is common for some Muslims to react violently. And it is precisely this submission in the face of threats of violence that freedom activists are uncomfortable with.

In September 2009, Justice Richard Goldstone released a UN commissioned report on some of the atrocities committed during the three-week war in Gaza that started in December 2008. The four-member investigative team found evidence that both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants were guilty of serious violations of international humanitarian law, possibly amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report recommended that both sides conducted independent credible investigations of their own actions. Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, told Web site Palestine Note that Hamas would comply with the request, though they had some reservations with the report. Some Israeli cabinet ministers want to set up an independent investigation, such as Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Ministers Yitzhak Herzog, Avishay Braverman and Orit Noked. At this stage, however, they are still outvoted, and the only commission that the Israeli cabinet has approved is one to campaign against endorsement of the Goldstone report in the international community.

In a recent meeting with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman asserted that peace talks with the Palestinians could not progress amid international support for the Goldstone report. At a November 4 meeting of the UN General Assembly, Israel’s UN Ambassador Gabriela Shalev warned that the report and the debate did “not promote peace – they damage(d) any effort to revitalise negotiations in the region”. These sentiments have been echoed by some Obama administration officials and are at least part of the U.S.’s reason for voting against the adoption of the Goldstone report in the UN Human Rights Council meeting in October.

Since Hamas is prepared to cooperate with the requests in the report, and since they are willing to endorse the report with reservations, the only conclusion to draw here is that international endorsement of the report is harmful to the peace process because Israel would opt out of peace talks if they are held accountable for their atrocities. We are thus encouraged to appease Israel by rejecting the Goldstone report, because if we do not, then they will continue their current actions in the Palestinian territories and refuse to participate in the peace process.

If this is an accurate representation of events, then it is worrying. There is, of course, space for the temporary overlooking of human rights violations in favour of the practicalities of getting a peace process off the ground. South Africans temporarily put such violations aside while the National Party ended apartheid policies and handed political rule over to the African National Congress. But no one ever dared deny that both sides committed sickening crimes against fellow South Africans during apartheid. And there was never any doubt that the country could not move forward unless apartheid-era atrocities were acknowledged and truthfully recounted. This accordingly occurred with the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which offered South Africans the opportunity to come clean, make peace and receive amnesty.

The current Israeli and American government attitude is not to put the Goldstone report aside temporarily while making peace in the region, however. The attitude is to declare it biased and illegitimate and bin it permanently on those grounds. And this risks becoming just another case of placating a violent party because if we do not, then they will continue to be violent. The threat of pulling out of the peace process and the continued violence and occupation that it entails is meant to prompt us to permanently excuse Israel’s actions in Gaza. And this is an unacceptable demand, especially in this context where a peace deal looks decades away. If China demanded that we overlooked their crimes against the Tibetan people while making very few constructive steps towards ending the occupation of Tibet, the international community would not be satisfied.

Israel alone can, of course, not be held responsible for the stalling of the peace process. But the fact that the Palestinians might be failing to meet their obligations does not erase Israel’s obligation to do their Share, in the same way as one driver’s traffic violations does not relieve the rest of us of our duty to drive well. Accordingly, Israel can be held responsible for the ongoing settlement building, which is the current obstacle to peace talks. So long as Israel prioritises its expansion over peace, peace in the region is so far away that excusing war crimes serves no purpose in an almost non-existent peace process.

It is, therefore, important for the international community not to submit to the demands of the violent. We should treat them like we treat everyone else, like we are treating Hamas in this case. Let both sides investigate their crimes and hold their criminals responsible.

The Indian government refused to allow foreign journalists to cover the Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh state in northeast India on November 8, according to the Associated Press.

Arunachal Pradesh is an Indian state bordered with China and has been the subject of border disputes between the two countries.

The AP article on the New York Times website reads:

Permits allowing foreign correspondents to travel to Arunachal Pradesh state were not given, and the government revoked passes previously provided to four of them, including two Associated Press journalists.

Foreigners require special government permission to visit the mountainous state.

”We are incredibly surprised and disappointed to learn that reporters’ visas to Arunachal Pradesh have been canceled ahead of the Dalai Lama’s visit,” said Heather Timmons, president of the New Delhi-based Foreign Correspondents’ Club.

China has strongly opposed the Tibetan spiritual leader’s visit to a Buddhist monastery in the Arunachal Pradesh town of Tawang beginning Sunday.

Although relations between India and China have improved in recent years, tensions can flare because of sharpening economic rivalries, lingering bitterness over their shared border, and unrest in Tibet — the Chinese-controlled Himalayan region on the Indian frontier.

Last week, the Dalai Lama said China was overpoliticizing his travels, adding his decisions on where to go were spiritual in nature, not political.

However, amid pressure from China, more than 800 Buddhist monks in Arunachal are all set to give the Dalai Lama a “religious welcome.”

An article on Spero news reported yesterday:

According to Rinpoche [prime minister of Tibet’s government-in-exile], “this is the fifth visit of the Dalai Lama to the State, actually the sixth, if you count the time when he went through the State on his way to Dharamsala. It is a routine visit, planned long time ago. The Dalai Lama will inaugurate a hospital, and the local population wants to receive his dharshan (blessing). It is clearly a religious trip, nothing political about it.”

It all strictly comes down to the political relationship with China.

Barack Obama also cancelled his meeting with the spiritual Tibetan leader last month, stirring a debate of whether a policy of appeasement towards the Chinese government is undergoing.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

Diese Worte stellen einen Auszug aus der Stellungnahme von US-Präsident Obama zum Iran dar. Und ja, Sie lesen richtig: es geht Obama nicht um “eine auf gegenseitigen Interessen und Respekt basierende Beziehung” zum Iran, sondern zur Islamischen Republik Iran. Befände sich Obama nicht schon seit längerem ganz unten, er könnte nicht mehr tiefer fallen.

Denn selbst wenn ignoriert wird, dass es sich bei Obamas Objekt der Begierde um ein islamfaschistisches und antisemitischen Regime handelt – was im Gedankenexperiment legitim sein mag, in der Wirklichkeit jedoch schändlich ist -, steht doch ohne jeden Zweifel fest: die Islamische Republik Iran hat keine bedeutsamen gemeinsamen Interessen mit den Vereinigten Staaten und der freien Welt. Ganz im Gegenteil: es handelt sich um ein Nullsummenspiel, die Interessen Washingtons und des Westens sind den mörderischen Interessen der Islamfaschisten diametral entgegengesetzt.

Wenn deutsche Journalisten diesen Umstand leugnen oder verkennen, ist dies zwar ärgerlich und zu kritisieren, jedoch – von der fortlaufenden Verdummung der Dummen durch die noch Dümmeren einmal abgesehen – ohne schwerwiegende Folgen. Wenn sich hingegen der amerikanische Präsident dieses Umstandes nicht einmal bewusst zu sein scheint, ist das, was auf dieser Welt an einem Mindestmaß an Zivilisation vorhanden ist, in allergrößter Gefahr.

Crossposted auf FREE IRAN NOW!

I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

Diese Worte stellen einen Auszug aus der Stellungnahme von US-Präsident Obama zum Iran dar. Und ja, Sie lesen richtig: es geht Obama nicht um “eine auf gegenseitigen Interessen und Respekt basierende Beziehung” zum Iran, sondern zur Islamischen Republik Iran. Befände sich Obama nicht schon seit längerem ganz unten, er könnte nicht mehr tiefer fallen.

Denn selbst wenn ignoriert wird, dass es sich bei Obamas Objekt der Begierde um ein islamfaschistisches und antisemitischen Regime handelt – was im Gedankenexperiment legitim sein mag, in der Wirklichkeit jedoch schändlich ist -, steht doch ohne jeden Zweifel fest: die Islamische Republik Iran hat keine bedeutsamen gemeinsamen Interessen mit den Vereinigten Staaten und der freien Welt. Ganz im Gegenteil: es handelt sich um ein Nullsummenspiel, die Interessen Washingtons und des Westens sind den mörderischen Interessen der Islamfaschisten diametral entgegengesetzt.

Wenn deutsche Journalisten diesen Umstand leugnen oder verkennen, ist dies zwar ärgerlich und zu kritisieren, jedoch – von der fortlaufenden Verdummung der Dummen durch die noch Dümmeren einmal abgesehen – ohne schwerwiegende Folgen. Wenn sich hingegen der amerikanische Präsident dieses Umstandes nicht einmal bewusst zu sein scheint, ist das, was auf dieser Welt an einem Mindestmaß an Zivilisation vorhanden ist, in allergrößter Gefahr.

Crossposted auf Zeitung für Schland.

This 13 year old put’s President Pantywaist to shame. Thanks to Bare naked Islam for posting the video. Visit her site.