MONDOWEISS ONLINE NEWSLETTER

NOVANEWS


EU calls for immediate end to Israel’s siege of Gaza
Posted: 29 May 2010

AFP reports:

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on Friday called for an immediate end to Israel’s Gaza blockade, as an aid flotilla prepared to set sail for the enclave despite the embargo.
“The continued policy of closure is unacceptable and politically counterproductive,” she said in a statement.
“We would like to reiterate the EU’s call for an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza.”

In spite of this appeal, the government of Cyprus has taken the extraordinary step of preventing members of the European parliament from joining the Freedom Flotilla.
The Cyprus Mail reported today:

Cypriot authorities prevented pro-Palestinian activists, including 30 MPs from nine European countries, from leaving the island yesterday to join a flotilla in international waters, which is on its way to blockaded Gaza.
In addition to issuing an edict banning ships headed for Gaza to set sail from the island’s ports, or dock on the island on their way back, the authorities yesterday forbade any small vessels from leaving Cyprus in case they were on their way to the flotilla of eight ships carrying around 700 peace activists, and 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid.

The government denied it bowed to pressure from Israel to put the ban in place.
The European Union guarantees the right of freedom of movement of its citizens within the territory of its member states. Cyprus has been a member of the EU since 2004.
A Tweet @freegazaorg said at about 11AM Eastern:

Twenty have left from Famaghusta, [Turkish controlled] Northern Cyprus, four German MPs, one Swedish MP, all the passengers from Challenger 1. Hedy [Epstein] not going.

Meanwhile, Haaretz reports:

The Hamas leader in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh said Saturday that if Israel behaved like pirates and attacked the international Freedom Flotilla carrying 10,000 tons of aid meant for Gaza, then the Palestinians will have won.
“The flotilla’s message is clear and it will reach the entire world,” Haniyeh said Saturday morning during a press conference held at the Gaza port where the ships were expected to dock.
“The meaning of the flotilla is that the entire world opposes the siege on the Gaza Strip, and if Israel behaves like pirates and sea-terrorists – we will win,” he added.

This is cross-posted at Woodward’s site, War in Context.

Eviction notices for two more Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah!
Posted: 29 May 2010

As Netanyahu heads to Washington, as reported in Haaretz. Oh and as Rahm Emanuel cavorts in the occupied territories.
Live stream of the flotilla–
Posted: 29 May 2010

Here it is, with the wine-dark sea sparkling on the world’s hopes of freeing the people of Gaza. 
In NPT, US sacrifices its own policy goals to serve as Israel’s lawyer
Posted: 29 May 2010

Obama administration officials complained repeatedly that Israel was ‘singled out’ in the new Mid East NPT document, but it turns out that it was the U.S. itself that put Israel front and center.
In addition to Israel, Pakistan and India were also called out by name in the document, according to the latest reports. So was North Korea, in even harsher language. What do these four countries have in common? Well: none are NPT signatories.
But Israel is unique in two ways: It’s the only clandestine program (i.e. not publicly declared or tested weapons) and it’s the only country that U.S. officials went to bat for immediately following the agreement on the document. No mention from Barack Obama and Jim Jones about how Pakistan was being singled out. (Where’s the Pakistan lobby in the power rankings again?)
The language about India and Pakistan had been included in earlier drafts, but their status in the final version went unmentioned in other reports I’d seen. The Times story by Neil MacFarquhar, however, does note the demand that they join the NPT.
I can’t find a copy of the document online, but I’m eager to see in what manner Israel is “singled out” when at least three other countries are named.
The Times hints that the language about North Korea, though watered down from the what the U.S. wanted, was still severe (“its nuclear program constitutes a threat to ‘peace and security'”).
However, the one reference to Israel, according to MacFarquhar, “basically repeats a previously stated position that Israel should join the 40-year-old nonproliferation treaty.” I doubt the specific references to Pakistan and India could be less ambitious than that.
What’s more interesting, however, is that the U.S. was, at the NPT, once again acting as Israel’s lawyer when Arab states and Iran attempted to try their nuclear-armed neighbor in absentia. Gary Samore, Obama’s nuke czar, even said the U.S. “insisted in retaining a role as a sponsor” to the 2012 Mid East talks so that it can shield Israel.
The Washington Post noted it, too (“U.S. officials had fought to keep Israel from being named in the final document”), but here’s the Times‘ account:

Tensions over the content of the final document after a month of negotiations went down to the wire, with diplomats portraying the last few days as a poker game with the United States and Iran each trying to call the other’s bluff so that one might be blamed for the failure of the conference to reach consensus.
In the end, the United States accepted one reference to Israel in the final document, in the section on the Middle East… 

“…having that language in the Mideast section we think sends a really negative political signal,” Mr. Samore said. “It suggests the conference will be designed to single out Israel.” That would decrease the likelihood of such a conference ever happening, he said, which is why the United States insisted in retaining a role as a sponsor.

So that’s the stakes the U.S. was playing for? Trading watered-down language on North Korea and no mention at all of Iran for Israel’s sake? And just for limiting the number of Israel references to one? (In his statement on the document, Obama mentioned Israel twice and Jones six times! Who’s singling who out again?)
This should raise some questions about aligned interests and the burden that Israel plays on U.S. foreign policy. In an NPT forum it spearheads, the U.S. is sacrificing its own policy goals in order to defend an ostensible ally because that ally refuses to sign on to the Treaty at all. There’s supposed to be ‘no daylight,’ but at the NPT, the cracks seem to be chasms.

Navratilova joins in Peer hugs-n-Holocaust show
Posted: 29 May 2010

The other day Susie Kneedler noted that the Tennis Channel is owned by a man who was a star at AIPAC last year and that it ran a pro-Israel propaganda piece–complete with Auschwitz memories from her grandmother–on behalf of Shahar Peer, the Israeli tennis star who in 2009 was nearly prevented from playing in Dubai.  The channel thereby links BDS to the Holocaust. Breaking news: because she follows tennis, Susie Kneedler has now watched the piece twice:
Tennis Channel just ran the Peer film again; I made a point of seeing Peer play to discover whether the announcers would “play” it the same way.
Sure enough, Justin Gimelstob mouthed Ted Robinson’s exact lines, “Well, Israel’s number one-ranked tennis player has earned world-wide reputation for standing up for herself versus the forces of injustice and, as this tale reveals, this remarkable young woman’s ability to thrive in the present is in many ways a result of her keen awareness of the past.” The fact that another commenter recited this script means that the Tennis Channel wants us to see Peer’s–and thus Israel’s–past and present as conjoined twins, while neglecting the roots of “Arab” actions. The explicitly “political” piece images “Jews and Israelis” as a trio of mutually exclusive opposites: simultaneously eternal victims, perpetual survivors, and transcendent victors. That extraordinary combination is supposed to make Peer “remarkable,” particularly because she is “Well, an incredible story of overcoming adversity.”
This time round, viewers were treated to Martina Navratilova venting about the impossible challenges Peer has faced.  But the biggest revelation from this repetition is that the Tennis Channel depicted the Peer family visit to Auschwitz as “beautiful”: Leif Shiras tells us that a lot of work went into that tribute and that Loy Maxon (of Fox Sports) was involved in putting those “beautiful pictures together, very telling.”
Peer won her match against Bartoli.  After Bartoli’s gracious embrace, Navratilova effused, “Nice gesture from Marion Bartoli: she’s a bit of an underdog herself, so she can relate to what Shahar Peer is going through, and the whole country I think will be sitting and watching TV when this woman plays Serena Williams in the next round.” 
What’s Peer enduring now? Which country?  Where’s the exquisite video romanticizing Bartoli’s struggles?  Meanwhile, why does professional tennis enjoy no Palestinian players?
Update: Grandiose Tennis Channel promo about Peer, announced by Bill Macatee, “The women’s 18th seed from Israel continues to excel on the court, but it’s the stand she made off the court that has changed the way tennis is played.  We’ll have that incredible story for you today…. at 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific.”
 
When the establishment is at the guns, Obama will always retreat
 Posted: 29 May 2010

Dilip Hiro at TomDispatch says that Obama is adept at pressuring a foreign leader and then backing off. And that when it comes to Netanyahu, the tail has wagged the dog.Oh and I like David Bromwich’s assessment of Obama’s character at LRB:

Obama’s besetting political fault is his automatic adoption of the tone of command, accompanied by a persistent reluctance to be seen as the source of the policy he commandeers…
The American establishment as a whole, rather than the leaders of a party, became Obama’s tutor in statesmanship. It was not an adequate substitute. Obama when he entered the presidency had seen more of the world than most people but less of America than many Americans. What he knew were the academic, the liberal-political and the corporate milieux, where doors swung open in gratitude and wonder at a man of his qualities. Fellow students at Harvard Law School and colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School knew him as a ‘mediator’ without marked opinions of his own. He left almost no trail of position papers – nothing substantial, quotable or quoted – though he cast votes and made decisions after listening to others make their case. He led a charmed life and aroused few suspicions. Two decades of ambitious but unadventurous apprenticeship on this pattern left him baffled at the first strong signs of resistance in 2009. Until that year, it is only a slight exaggeration to say the Republicans whom Obama had met were judges, lawyers, corporate leaders and academics. He had never encountered a determined man in the black hat quite like John Boehner, the congressional minority leader; as for Fox Radio, it was a distant island, heard of in chuckling rumours at dinner parties, its noises dissipated by the ocean of seminars and think-tanks in between. Obama is still mystified by the idea that there are people who don’t like him.
His sense of personal invincibility was always accompanied by an extreme cautiousness. Many people think this has served him well at a time of crisis. I don’t agree; I wish Obama had acted more boldly, and think he could have done so…
There were opportunities for [foreign policy ]reform of a sort that comes less often than once in a generation. Yet Obama acted on the assumption that the establishment is one and irreplaceable, and must be served in roughly its present form. This assumption he seems to have acquired between the summer of 2008 – the time of his capitulation on domestic surveillance and his Aipac speech affirming support for Israel – and the National Archives Speech on security a year later… If one were to compile an Obama Retreat Checklist – composed of the advisers whom he cut away when under pressure, or persons he nominated to important posts but withdrew from consideration – the names would include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Rashid Khalidi and the anti-war Republican senator Chuck Hagel, whose leaked note to George W. Bush may have saved the US from a war with Iran in 2007. If one made it a list of incidents as well as persons, one would have to count the snub to Jimmy Carter that denied him a prominent part at the Democratic Convention of 2008 – a graceless as well as a gutless omission.

Some conspiracy theories are true — Cockburn
Posted: 29 May 2010

Alex Cockburn in The American Conservative responds to Sydney Schanberg’s reporting in that magazine suggesting that 150-600 American prisoners of the Vietnamese were left behind when we withdrew and held in Laos– a story Schanberg says he was not able to publish even as John McCain was implicated in the imbroglio:

The integration of journalists into Washington’s policy apparatus, with its luxuriant jungle of lobby shops thinly disguised as nonprofits, with their seminars, “scholars in residence,” and fellowships, has led to a decorous tendency to ignore the grime of politics at the level of corruption, blackmail, and bribery—mostly inaccessible anyway without the power of subpoena. There’s an interesting genre of books, some written by political fixers in the aftermath of exposure or incarceration—Bobby Baker’s Wheeling and Dealing is a good example—that usefully describe the grime, but these are rarely reviewed in respectable journals.
Sometimes a cover-up does surface, propelled into the light of day by a tenacious journalist. Then there’s the outraged counterattack. Are you suggesting, sir, that the CIA connived to smuggle cocaine into America’s inner cities? Gary Webb’s career at the San Jose Mercury News was efficiently destroyed. Those who took the trouble to read the subsequent full report of CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz found corroboration of Webb’s charges. But by then the caravan had moved on. A jury issued its verdict, but the press box was empty.
Maybe now the decline in power of the established corporate press, the greater availability of dissenting versions of politics and history, and the exposure of the methods used to coerce public support for the attack on Iraq have engendered a greater sense of realism on the part of Americans about what their government can do. Perhaps the press will be more receptive to discomfiting stories about what Washington is capable of in the pursuit of what it deems to be the national interest. Hopefully, in this more fertile soil, Syd Schanberg’s pertinacity will be vindicated at last, and those still active in politics who connived at this abandonment will be forced to give an account.

Who lost Zionism?
Posted: 29 May 2010

The latest New Left Review has an important exchange between American-Israeli Gabriel Piterberg of UCLA, author of The Returns of Zionism, and a reviewer of Piterberg’s book, Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell, whose review is titled, “In Defence of Liberal Zionism.” I believe that the erudite Sternhell gets the better of Piterberg in describing the birth of Zionism in Europe as a “radical” form of nationalism responding to anti-Semitism–not a colonialist movement. (As I say, I would have been a Zionist then). But Piterberg gets the better of Sternhell in his assessment of how Zionism has worked out. Here is a portion of the end of Piterberg’s essay (buy NLR, read the whole thing) that addresses Sternhell’s charge, a charge that is becoming familiar on the left, that he is trying to destroy Israel. Note that Piterberg’s argument reflects John Mearsheimer’s assessment at the Palestine Center a few weeks back:

[Sternhell’s] charge that my views are tantamount to a wish for Israel’s disappearance requires rebuttal. I am vehemently opposed to any position that seeks the violent destruction of Israel which, in terms of its foundation, is neither more nor less legitimate than other settler states like the us, Canada, Argentina or Australia. What I would argue for is the de-Zionization of the single state that has now de facto existed between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean for 43 years—more than twice the duration of Israel within the Green Line—so that it may become a modern state based on something resembling universal suffrage, rather than one predicated upon Judaeo-supremacy.
Sternhell belongs to a socio-political formation that is now on the verge of extinction, namely, the Zionist-Israeli liberal left…
Given the ‘realities on the ground’, Sternhell’s hope that Israel, as a Zionist state, may one day roll itself back—or be rolled back—to its pre-67 existence is completely untenable. Indeed, the reason Sternhell is so incensed by The Returns of Zionism lies in his basic decency and honesty. He knows that his dream of a social-democratic Israel within the Green Line borders has been all but shattered and that the Occupation is there to stay for the foreseeable future. More fundamentally, he knows that Zionist Israel is simply irreconcilable with the notion of any remotely equal citizenship for all who are included within it, regardless of whether this is the inevitable culmination of the Zionist project or the nightmarish result of a decent hope gone terribly astray. He knows that with every day that passes, Israel—within and without the Green Line—is becoming more aggressive, more oppressive, more hell-bent on pushing Judaeo-supremacy to unprecedented levels. Sternhell, most crucially, is as familiar as I am with S. Yizhar’s memorable line in his 1948 novella Khirbet Khizeh: ‘We came, we shot, we burned; we blew up, expelled, drove out, and sent into exile.’ It is painful enough for an individual as decent as Sternhell to confine the absorption of this line to 1948; the realization of its prophetic extent, as a synecdoche for what Israel would become, is surely intolerable.

Obama likes Mid East NPT conference, but Jones quickly expresses ’serious reservations’
Posted: 29 May 2010

One more thought re the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that just ended.
Here is Barack Obama’s statement on the conference, excerpted. Note the support for a regional conference in 2012 on the Middle East, with references to Israel and Iran:

The United States welcomes the agreements reached at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime.
 
…The document includes an agreement to hold a regional conference in 2012 to discuss issues relevant to a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems.  The United States has long supported such a zone, although our view is that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for its establishment.  We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security. 
The greatest threat to proliferation in the Middle East, and to the NPT, is Iran’s failure to live up to its NPT obligations….

That wasn’t good enough. Within an hour, the White House issued a second statement, this one from National Security Advisor, General James L. Jones. It goes a lot further than Obama, and as Ali Gharib has pointed out, mentions Israel six times. Who writes this stuff? And is this all about donors for the 2010 election cycle?
Despite our agreement to the final document, we have serious reservations about one aspect of the Middle East resolution it contains.  The final document includes an agreement to hold a regional conference in 2012 to discuss issues relevant to a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems.  The United States has long supported such a zone, although our view is that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for its establishment.  Just as our commitment to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons will not be reached quickly, the U.S. understands that a WMD free zone in the Middle East is a long-term goal.
…The United States will not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel’s national security.  We will not accept any approach that singles out Israel or sets unrealistic expectations.  The United States’ long-standing position on Middle East peace and security remains unchanged, including its unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.  
In this respect, the United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document.
The failure of the resolution to mention Iran, a nation in longstanding violation of the NPT and UN Security Council Resolutions which poses the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the region and to the integrity of the NPT, is also deplorable.
 
As a cosponsor charged with enabling this conference, the United States will ensure that a conference will only take place if and when all countries feel confident that they can attend.  Because of gratuitous way that Israel has been singled out, the prospect for a conference in 2012 that involves all key states in the region is now in doubt and will remain so until all are assured that it can operate in a unbiased and constructive way.

 
Obama says nuclear-free Middle East is good goal– with an asterisk
28 May 2010

Well, the five-year review conference of the UN’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty yielded some headlines in its waning moments: NPT countries, including the U.S., produced a document calling for a 2012 conference to discuss a nuclear free Middle East.
The U.S. reaction to this more-than-reasonable goal, however, has been tepid, to say the least.

Both President Obama and, 45 minutes later, National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones lament that Israel is “singled out” in the document (neither statement is online yet; they’re attached below this piece). It’s fair enough to “deplore” that Iran goes unmentioned by name despite its program, but why not “single out” Israel? Israel has “singled out” herself by being the only country in the region to not sign the NPT and subsequently develop a massive nuclear arsenal. Israel and her stateside allies whine about the “double standard” to which it is held by human rights groups, yet in this case they demand nuclear transparency and compliance with the NPT, while Israel comes nowhere close to offering either. (Iran, by the way, goes unmentioned because it actually is signed onto the NPT and therefore sits in the conference and holds a veto over the document.)
In the Washingon Post, we learn that “U.S. officials said the plan might go nowhere because of language singling out Israel’s secret nuclear program”:

Gary Samore, Obama’s nuclear coordinator, said that naming only Israel in the context of the Middle East conference sent a signal that the event would be used to isolate the Jewish state. “We will not support a meeting that puts Israel in that kind of position,” he told reporters.

Again — Israel put herself in “that kind of position.” Jones suggests that’s OK:
 
The United States will not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel’s national security.  We will not accept any approach that singles out Israel or sets unrealistic expectations. 
Another qualification in Obama and Jones’s statements that could doom the 2012 conference to failure was their reiteration that a nuclear-free Middle East can only occur once their is “peace” in the region. From whence does the U.S. get its policy? WaPo, funnily enough, describes this as Israel’s long-held position: “Israel has said it would agree to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction only after it has reached peace agreements with its neighbors, something unlikely to happen for years.”
It’s always worth mentioning here that the region’s most fraught conflict, its longest lasting one, is a belligerent occupation of the Golan Heights (Bibi refuses to negotiate), the West Bank (Bibi will build again), and Gaza (pinned down under a constant and oppressive act of war — a seige). This military occupation was, of course, started by Israel when it annexed captured lands after the 1967 war.

But let’s end with some positive points. In Jones’s statement, full inclusion is highlighted as an essential component to the meetings two years from now:

The proposed regional conference, to be effective, must include all countries of the Middle East and other relevant countries.

As usual from the realist corner, this is all justified by Jones as a national security interest. He says that because the document focuses on “inspection and compliance,” it will serve “to strengthen the national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.” Well, I guess not purely the national interest, but we’ll leave well enough alone.
 
Statements follow:
 
1. Statement by the President on the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
 
The United States welcomes the agreements reached at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime.
 
The NPT must be at the center of our global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, while pursuing the ultimate goal of a world without them.  This agreement includes balanced and practical steps that will advance non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which are critical pillars of the global non-proliferation regime.  It reaffirms many aspects of the agenda that I laid out in Prague, and which we have pursued together with other nations over the last year, and underscores that those nations that refuse to abide by their international obligations must be held accountable.
The document includes an agreement to hold a regional conference in 2012 to discuss issues relevant to a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems.  The United States has long supported such a zone, although our view is that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for its establishment.  We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security. 
The greatest threat to proliferation in the Middle East, and to the NPT, is Iran’s failure to live up to its NPT obligations.  Today’s efforts will only strengthen the NPT as a critical part of our efforts to ensure that all nation’s meet their NPT and non-proliferation obligations, or face consequences.  Together, we must work for a world where nation’s benefit from the peaceful power of nuclear energy, while also being secure from the threat posed by nuclear proliferation.
 
2. Statement by the National Security Advisor, General James L. Jones, on the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
The United States welcomes the agreements reached at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime.
The final document broadly supports our strategy to strengthen the NPT, which is essential to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons around the world and pursuing the ultimate goal of a world without them.  The document includes balanced and practical steps to advance nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which are critical pillars of the global nonproliferation regime.  In particular, the document calls for measures to strengthen inspections and compliance with the treaty, which will support our efforts to deal with countries like Iran who are seeking a nuclear weapons capability in violation of their international obligations.  For this reason, we believe the document serves to strengthen the national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.
Despite our agreement to the final document, we have serious reservations about one aspect of the Middle East resolution it contains.  The final document includes an agreement to hold a regional conference in 2012 to discuss issues relevant to a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems.  The United States has long supported such a zone, although our view is that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for its establishment.  Just as our commitment to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons will not be reached quickly, the U.S. understands that a WMD free zone in the Middle East is a long-term goal.
The proposed regional conference, to be effective, must include all countries of the Middle East and other relevant countries.  The United States will insist that this be a conference for discussion aimed at an exchange of views on a broad agenda, to include regional security issues, verification and compliance, and all categories of weapons of mass destruction and systems for their delivery.  The conference would draw its mandate from the countries in the region in recognition of the principle that states in the region have sole authority regarding any WMD free zone in the Middle East.
To ensure the conference takes into account the interests of all regional states, the United States has decided to co-sponsor the conference, along with the UK, Russia, and the UN Secretary General.  Together, we will identify a host for this conference and an individual to facilitate its preparation.  In addition, we will insist that the conference operate only by consensus by the regional countries, to include agreement on any possible further discussions or follow-up actions, which will only take place with the consent of all the regional countries.
The United States will not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel’s national security.  We will not accept any approach that singles out Israel or sets unrealistic expectations.  The United States’ long-standing position on Middle East peace and security remains unchanged, including its unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.  
In this respect, the United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document.
 
The failure of the resolution to mention Iran, a nation in longstanding violation of the NPT and UN Security Council Resolutions which poses the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the region and to the integrity of the NPT, is also deplorable.
 
As a cosponsor charged with enabling this conference, the United States will ensure that a conference will only take place if and when all countries feel confident that they can attend.  Because of gratuitous way that Israel has been singled out, the prospect for a conference in 2012 that involves all key states in the region is now in doubt and will remain so until all are assured that it can operate in a unbiased and constructive way.
See: www.mondoweiss.net
 

 

 

One thought on “MONDOWEISS ONLINE NEWSLETTER

  1. The BP oil spill is getting worst and destroying our Mother Earth every single day. We can’t do anything about this but just to watch our government solve the catastrophe. However, we can change a simple thing in our everyday lifestyles that will make a huge difference to our environment. How? Use these eco bags for your everyday shopping even in the restaurant. Did you know that we throw away about in average 3 plastic bags per day. This means, every year a single person is dumping roughly around 2,000 un-degradable bags into our Mother Earth. This huge amount of plastic bags into our previous land can be avoided just by using Green bags. These Green Supply bags are easy to store and use at any occasion. Please carry green bag with you everyday and refuse a plastic bag instead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.