Thank you Stephen Harper, the 1st Amendment and Hillary Clinton. US pulls our of Durban

Late Friday afternoon the US State Department announced that it was pulling out of the Durban II conference.

What happened to bring about this change?

3 significant things.

President Obama heard loud and clear this week during his visit with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had been left to twist in the wind as the only Western Democracy besides Israel to pull out, that they considered a sacrifice of them that the US, despite all statements by the prior administration, was planning to attend.

The next impetus, was that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband President Bill Clinton, had been a vocal critic of the first Durban conference, is on her way to Israel today.

She expressed her continued angst not just at the attendance, but the continued direction taken by the administration to this point regarding the Middle East.

In the days before the announcements, there were several frightening incidents that the US refused to object to. Notably, when a section on genocide was slated to include mention of the Holocaust, Iran and Libya objected to this which meant it would be excluded unless someone objected. The US failed to do so.

Finally, and most critically, in the last days before Fridays announcement, a section of the Durban official statement, which was clearly in violation of the First Amendment, was made even more so, specifically prohibiting speech against religion and asking for the UN to enforce this provision.

Undoubtedly, what was transmitted to all involved was that the US and specifically President Obama could not sign such a document without violating the constitution.

So, to the founding fathers, and Stephen Harper, thank you.

I just wish it was a larger lesson learned.

Amnesty International Joins the fight

Surprise, Amnesty International has called for an international arms embargo on Israel. In particular, calling on the United States to end all military aid to our one democratic ally in that region.

Interesting that there is no such call for an embargo on any Arab nation. Not Egypt, which receives virutally dollar for dollar the same aid from us as Israel. Not the Saudis, the worldwide leaders in export of terrorism, or anyone else.

Why is this significant? Well who is one of just a half dozen board members of Amnesty International? None other than President Obama's leading foreign policy voice, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Add to this the fascinating fact that since 2001 the drumbeat of anti American chants from AI since the ascension of the first Muslim chairman, Irene Zubaida Khan, a Pakistani. Khan famously called the prison at Gitmo a "gulag" thereby minimizing the millions that were put to death in Stalin's camps over the years.

Chalk another one up.

The First Openly Anti Semitic President

There have been leaders of the United States who have held Jews in great disdain. If you listen to the Watergate tapes, for example, you can hear Richard Nixon use all manner of expletives to describe my religious brothers and sisters.

But never before has any President, so universally, consistently, and rapidly, expressed through his ACTIONS, as opposed to his always carefully parsed words, his hatred of "Jews".

Like so many, I can hear the cries of "what about Rahm Emanuel?" etc. That canard wouldn't fly if I said to you "my best friend is black" but I was burning a cross at the same time, even if it were true. So why should it now?

Let me backtrack. Many of you read my posts during the election season and know my feelings about Obama. Much of it came from this issue. I knew, from the associations and friends he had, as well as the blatant lies he told, what his predilections were.

But I could not even convince my Jewish friends of this. Why? Many reasons, the most obvious being the overwhelming Democratic/Liberal composition of the Jewish population in the US.

But there is a strange quality we Jews have. We never believe anyone could really dislike us just because we don't believe in Jesus, or Mohamed or anyone else. As Hitler was passing law after law, and creating ghetto after ghetto, we stayed (of course it didn't help that no one would take us).

And, despite ALL the stereotypes, we think of things like social justice, and equal rights far more than we do about our Jewishness. We are Americans first (or Canadians, Frenchman, whatever) last, and in between.

Add to that the fact that most (and by most I mean 90% and up) of diaspora (worldwide) Jews know little to nothing about Israel, its' people, its' geography, etc.

But there was also something that Jews have been told by various groups for years. That no mainstream American politician was anti Israel, or anti Semitic. That their support was really just on a scale. That they all understood the essential nature of the relationship between the Jewish community, and Israel, and the US.

As is often said, it is one of shared values. A truly democratic nation, thriving with a first world economy, and real freedom, in an area of the world devoid of it.

When Obama first announced, I began to research, as I usually do, and the memories came back. Our days at Columbia, and his mentors. The Said's, the Khalidi's etc. But he must have grown since then? Matured? Moderated?

But then there was Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Robert Malley talking to Hamas.

All of these folks were supposed to be gone. Fired during the campaign.

But lo and behold, back they came after the election. Guess it's tough to get a firing to hold.

Rice, in fact, to a newly created cabinet level appointment as Representative to the UN, removing her from being under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Then there was his first official phone call as President. To Mahmoud Abbas. This is the same man, whose PhD thesis was a denial of the Holocaust.

Next, his first official interview with Al Arabiya not an American network, or even CNN international.

Then his appointment of General James Jones, who, like Rice and Powell, openly supports putting US troops in ISRAEL to protect those poor, bomb wearing, so called Palestinians, from Israelis.

OK, you say, but all of those folks have legitimate left wing bonafides and really don't indicate where Obama will go with his policies.

As I chuckle and say, yes but they all also openly supported Jimmy Carter's violently anti semitic last book, not to mention the fact that you forgot about his wonderful and openly anti semitic former Pastor. The infamous Jeremiah Wright - you remember him. Whose Pastor's corner section of his monthly bulletin wrote to Oprah not to go to Israel because the Israeli's had created an "ethnic bomb" designed to just kill blacks and Arabs?

So, next, Obama, in violation of US LAW, sends more than $20 million dollars to Hamas in Gaza. This is besides the indirect aid they already receive.

While doing this, he quietly, as he has done much of these things, officially reopens diplomatic relations with Syria. Announce it on Saturday evening, so it misses the news cycle.

You know that fun country that openly supports the worst terrorist groups in the world. That assassinated the President of Lebanon, and then with their friend Iran, engineered a takeover of that beautiful country by Hizbollah. Remember the days that Beirut was known as the "Paris of the Middle East"?

Next came his Durban II folly. You have read my thoughts about that. Of course, what I didn't mention is the latest issue there.
A holocaust denial clause was added to the original statement and amazingly, Der Fuhrer Obama did not have the US delegation object.
Apparently he really does support his pastor's view on the holocaust.

But now, something I simply could not have imagined.

The appointment of Charles "Chas" Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council. They are responsible for producing the National Intelligence estimate.

A little about Chas. He has stated that the Chinese government was not tough enough on their dissidents. That if they had only cracked down earlier, there would have been no need for Tiannamen square.

Freeman is the former head of the Middle East Policy Council. Now MEPC purports to be non partisan. Of course, they're hoping that we all forget that until 1991 their name was "The American-Arab Affairs Network" an official lobbyist of Saudi Arabia's.

Speaking of the Saudis, Chas has said that King Abdullah should not be known by that moniker, but rather as "Abdullah the Great".

That's not surprising since Abdullah was paying his salary. They funded the former American-Arab Affairs Network, cum MEPC.

Oh, did I mention that he feels that we need dictators and strong men around the world to control the "street". That he thinks that Hamas and Hezbollah are good for just that reason?

OK, you say, again. Being pro Israel's enemies, and anti Israel, is not anti semitic.

You're right of course. Hell, Israeli politics makes US politics look like pinochle. Israeli's are anti Israel in some respects.

But it is when it is combined with some of this:

When the Walt and Merscheimer anti semitic bible "The Israel Lobby..." came out, not only did Freeman support it, but he had MEPC PRINT IT.

And he is a wholehearted supporter of the belief that we Jews, all 6 million or so of us, control this country. Which, of course, is the thesis of that book.

The media, the banks, etc. (Funny, but I always wonder what guys like John Thain, Ken Lewis, Dick Parsons, Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the banking and media folks have to say about that.)

Of course, since EVERY ONE of the folks that I have mentioned here also support the Walt-Merscheimer book, is it really surprising that this latest Presidential appointment would as well?

What is really problematic here is that this appointment requires no Senate advice and consent. As well as the fact that Freeman has stated that he has been told that he will be part of the President's, er der Fuhrer's, daily security brief.

And this latest news may finally be waking some up. Marty Peretz, who was so important to Obama's ability to convince the Jewish community that he really was our friend, has written in The New Republic that this appointment is an insult to his patriotism.

Funny, but how could you have missed the signs, nay, the bat to the back of your head, before this?

If you thought I was wrong...

In the first action at the "planning" for Durban II, the Palestinian delegation added a paragraph to the Durban I paper calling on implementation of the International Court of Justice Advisory opinion on the fence in the West Bank (incorrectly called a wall).

The US delegation did not object to this.

This opinion was so clearly antisemitic as to be laughable. With literally hundreds of such fences and far more restrictive, at virtually every international border in the world, the idea that only Israel cannot put up a border fence can only have one interpretation.

That the Obama administration, despite US rejection of the original decision in the court, did not object to this being added, is proof that there is no attempt to "redirect" the tenor of the conference, but rather to rubber stamp it.

By not stating unequivocally that they would boycott, the US has now prevented all of Europe, which had indicated that they were likely to boycott, impotent to do so. Not to mention leaving Canada as apparently Israels' greatest ally.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Just in case the $300 dollars for every man woman and child in the so called Palestinian territories that we have been sending for the last several decades (yes that is more than $300 million dollars a year, most of which apparently goes to Suha Arafat in Paris), Our intrepid leader decided that they needed an extra $20 MILLION dollars 2 weeks ago while the stimulus bill was being discussed.

That would be $20 million to HAMAS. You know, that group that had a phone bank for him in the Gaza strip, and donated an as yet still undetermined amount to his campaign...

Thanks to my friend Elyriawolf, what follows is the Presidential order signed in january and published in the federal register on February 4th.

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 22 /Wednesday, February 4, 2009 / Presidential Documents 6115
Presidential Determination No. 2009–15 of January 27, 2009
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To
Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ‘‘Act’’), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international,
governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9–2488
Filed 2–3–09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710–10–P

I knew it would be bad, just not this bad...

The Obama administration announced in a well hidden press release last Friday, that the US would attend the Durban II conference on terrorism and racism and be involved in the planning for the conference.

The significance of this? In 2001, when Durban I was organized, it seemed like a good idea. But when the conference started it was an antisemitic hatefest which ultimately decided that the only country in the world that practiced racism was Israel. And that the greatest problem in the world was Islamophobia and anti Islamic acts. This while the genocide in Darfur was in full swing.

When it became apparent what the conference was about, President Bush pulled the American delegations. Several other nations left with us.

In the lead up to Durban II Israel obviously said it would not attend, and the Bush administration had made it clear it would not be involved as well.

Canada pulled out early on and expected US support for their action.

They have been sold out.

As I said early on, shame on any Jew that voted for this anti-semite.

What follows is the report from "Eye on the UN"

Obama Naivete at the U.N.

In a major foreign-policy decision taken over the weekend, President Obama has decided to legitimize the United Nations's "anti-racism" forum known as Durban II. State Department officials announced in a press release buried on Saturday, that starting today the United States will attend for the first time the preparatory meetings of this controversial U.N. conference. The "Durban Review Conference," scheduled for April in Geneva, is the progenitor of the anti-semitic hatefest that took place in South Africa in early September 2001.

The searing images of the demonization of America and Jews on the U.N.'s global stage, and the terrorism in New York 72 hours later, should have made joining this revived forum for U.N.-driven hate inconceivable. But President Obama seems intent on learning the lessons of history - and the relationship between hatemongering and violence - the hard way.

The State Department announcement claims that participating in Durban II preparations still leaves open the possibility of refusing to attend the April conference itself. The claim is completely disingenuous. They know full well that preparations are planned on and off-the-record from now until April and will likely continue until the final moments of the actual meeting - justifying ongoing participation under the guise of "still can't tell yet." Like diplomatic bees to honey. It is the decision to attend at all which represents a huge shift in American principles and priorities. For the past seven and a half years, the United States has boycotted Durban follow-up activities and voted against every Durban-related U.N. resolution.

Moreover, the very objective of Durban II is "to foster the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action." This is non-negotiable and cannot be changed by U.S. participation, period. In addition, all U.N. states attending these preparatory sessions have already agreed to "reaffirm the Durban Declaration". Since the U.S. walked out of Durban I in disgust (along with Israel) and rejected the Durban I Declaration, joining negotiations now means agreeing to its provisions for the first time.

But the Durban Declaration asserts that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism. This is also the only country-specific accusation in a document purporting to address international racism and xenophobia. Regardless of the quantity of new vitriol in Durban II's final product, therefore, participation legitimizes the mantra of Israeli racism. What is new is that the new president of the United States doesn't care about the U.N.'s reincarnation of 'Zionism is racism'.

The position is not only repugnant, but naive. Evidently, American officials believe that an African-American president can climb into a U.N. anti-racism ring, throw his weight around, and the 56 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference will roll over and play dead. Or hard-liners like Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand, and developing countries like South Africa, will jump on a U.S.-led bandwagon.

It will be painful to watch the administration forced to enroll in U.N. 101. At Durban I, the European Union did a numbers count and recognized that Western democracies were bound for the back of the bus. So they proceeded to permit condemnation of racist Israel in exchange for omitting any inconvenient reference to financial compensation for slavery (and adding a minor sop to the existence of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism). No matter that murdering Jews in Israel in the here and now - justified as an alleged struggle against racism - is a modern form of anti-Semitism.

Not only will Obama be buffeted by EU members attempting to save themselves and their pocketbooks, the developing world will be overjoyed at the prospect of debilitating Gulliver. The fact that he is prepared to lie down of his own volition and hand them the strings, just makes the occasion merrier. Obama will also come to know the overarching theme of all U.N. meetings, namely, that saving the credibility of the institution itself is the number one priority. This means that having mounted a global conference, any outcome or deal is better than nothing. Such a mindset leaves the extremists in the driver's seat. They will eat multilateralists-in-need-of-a-warm-group-hug for breakfast.

True, State department officials are masters at claiming victory with a straight face regardless of the drivel they draft. The 250-paragraph draft of the Durban II "outcome document" now before Obama, includes provisions which: say Israel's right of return (Jewish self-determination) is racist, accuse Israel of apartheid and crimes against humanity, seek major curbs on freedom of expression, invent global Islamophobia, and allege anti-terrorism tactics are a racist plot. The anti-democratic forces have thrown in the kitchen sink, knowing full well that Westerners will feign a win if even half of it is removed - though the reality will be a giant step backwards for rights and freedoms.

In truth, this Obama trip to the U.N. represents an abandonment of Israel. All his campaign promises to the contrary, sacrificing Israel for the sake of currying favor with others - demagogues included - is clearly at the top of the new president's agenda. Israel asked Obama not to attend. Canada also pulled out of Durban II and expected American support. Instead, today's American foreign policy leaves America's closest ally and its biggest trading partner out in the cold.

The speed at which President Obama is selling off American assets is breathtaking. The speed at which he is selling them out is even faster.

Buried on page 12...

When Obama issued his order to close Guantanamo within the year I wrote that, like most of his words, his actions that fail to back them up are more telling.

Yesterday, in federal court, a case on extraordinary rendition was being argued.

The judicial panel inquired of Douglas Letter, the attorney for the government, whether "there was anything material that had happened" that might have caused the Justice Department to have changed it's stance on Government secrecy.

The issue before the court is that the Bush administration policy that there were certain issues regarding rendition that could not be argued in court because simply to mention them in public would be dangerous to national security.

You might remember this was a major theme of Obama's campaign.

Here was the nexus of 2 of his key issues: 1) rendition (the act of sending US prisoners to overseas allies for "questioning" awar from rules the US observes; and 2) Secrecy of the government, and specifically the executive branch, i.e. the government.

Mr> Letter's answer to Judge Mary Schroeder was "No, your honor".

The Judge responded "The change in administration has no bearing?" in somewhat shocked disbelief.

Letter once again said "No, your honor".

And there it was. Change you can believe in...

The A-Rod case: Wrong questions and wrong answers...

This is primobolan, the steroid that A-Rod and many others used. Do you think he didn't know he was taking this?

Please see the series on PED's (Performance Enhancing Drugs) that I wrote a few years ago.

They are here
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part one
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part two
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 3: Naming names!
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 4: How the testing works .
The Hall of Fame, McGwire, Dick Pound and WADA: an update to: A brief history of Steroids.....
HgH, Sly Stallone and me: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...", Part 5
Lost in the shuffle: Anna Nicole and HgH
The Tour de France today: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...."
Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron and a lesson in hypocrisy.
Landis 1; USADA 1; Justice ? 0 ?
A new study: An update to "A brief History of Performing Enhancing Drugs..." Part 7
An update to: "A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs "

So, my take on A-Rod? Well, as to his using, if you read those posts you'll see that everyone is using, so no big deal. Or should I say, can anyone possibly be surprised?

What bothers me is the idea that he should either be condemned, or applauded for what? Being honest (which he still is NOT being). Should someone be commended for doing what should be the minimum for conducting our lives?

Just like his teamates Andy Pettite (the worst offender to me, who used his father to cover his gH prescription) and Jason Giambi, even his confession contained as many lies as any truths.
Note that he DID not say that it was 2001-2003. Peter Gammons said that, and Rodriguez said that that was about right. Do you honestly believe that?

Frankly, here's what should have been said, just as I wrote some time ago that Clemens should have said...

1) That everyone is using.
2) That you'd have to been insane if given the opportunity to make $25 million dollars a year, to NOT do it
3) That of COURSE he knew what he was taking. Who doesn't know what they are injecting into their bodies?
4) That the dangers are vastly overrated when medically supervised

Once one big name just comes out and says the above, then we can have the honest discussion and explain to kids why it is dangerous for them, as opposed to an adult male (if you want to know why it's dangerous for females, just talk to a female bodybuilder. Note how their voices are deeper than yours. Other parts of their bodies are more masculine than yours as well, and I don't mean their muscles).

What is once again lost in this discussion is that to date, more than 50% of the players that have been caught, have been pitchers.
So, does that mean that A-Rod and Bonds' and everyone elses stats are not valid?

And of course, baseball certainly has no worse a problem than the NFL or any other spo

When is a salary cap, not a salary cap?

Easy, when the political genius that is Obama announces it.

Such ballyhoo, so much publicity. Those damn Wall St. execs. How dare they make millions while we all suffer.
Absolutely.

So Obama is right to cap their pay, yes?
You bet he is. Only problem is, he didn’t do that.

For those of you who have ever held stock, you know those notices you get once a year telling you about your annual meeting? Well, probably you just threw it away and didn’t notice, but if you have ever held stock, in your company, a 401K, Mutual fund or any other way, than you get them from every company every year.

And guess what happens at that meeting? You vote on the CEO’s compensation as recommended by the compensation committee. You know, that committee comprised of all of the CEO’s buddies. Or a bunch of celebrities that the company brought in to fluff the board of directors.

And funny, but if that happens, there is NO salary limit under the Pres's plan.

But that’s just the beginning. The limit doesn’t exist for anyone who has ALREADY taken federal money. You know, all thsoe guys that pissed you off. Morgan, Citibank, AIG, etc, etc. They already got their slop at the public trough.

And it only applies to those in the future that apply under “special circumstances”. In other words NOT the banks that have made us all so mad. NOT the tarp funds.

So, when is a salary limit not a limit? When OH!!! BAMA!!!! sets it.

Btw, I am amazed. For the first time in my life, as I was driving last night, I tuned into conservative talk radio. OK, so I didn’t feel like listening to the NJ Nets or the NJ Devils who were playing on my two usual sports talk stations. So I was stuck. I knew if I put on music, I’d fall asleep at the wheel. Not good. So I though maybe if I get pissed off at the radio, it will keep up on my way back from Stew Leonard’s in Norwalk.

I tuned into Curtis Sliwa on WABC here in NY. That’s right, the guy who made a name for himself by being a vigilante, and than being beaten up by John Gotti’s thugs.

And even HE didn’t get it. So if the conservatives don’t understand what is going on, how can those who support this imposter understand.

Can you say change? Or in my English, B.S.

Oy, vey iz mir.... Is it Monday or Tuesday?

Quick translation - Oh, the pain!

So let's see, Monday night we all go to sleep thinking President Obama has steadfastly stood by his good friend and closest adviser, Tom Daschle saying that nothing could disqualify him and that he was needed to solve the health care crisis.

This despite the revelations not JUST of the tax problems that Daschle had, but that, in fact, he was as dirty as any politician has ever been after their electoral career ends.

He had gotten money from virtually every concern that he had ever voted for, regulated, etc and hoped to in the future.

SO what changed?

Well, first was the withdrawl of his so called "Chief Performance Officer". You know the person that was supposed to be watching over everyone else.

Well she made it 3 out of the last 3 nominees with tax problems.

Add to this was the NY Times, Obama's chief sponsor, calling for Daschle to withdraw on Monday and the die was cast, as they say.

So, Daschle withdrew.

I will give it to Obama though. He makes Bill Clinton's political acumen look pathetic.

Obama comes out Tuesday and says he made a mistake.

What I'd like to know is, when did he make a mistake?

Was it over the last 2 years when Daschle was leading such a high life that he needed to be chauffered everywhere and was offering supposed advice for the common man on the campaign?

Was it when he offered Daschle's name in nomination?

Was it when he continued to defend him even in the embarrassment of Treasury Secretary Geithner's nomination?

Was it when the tax problems emerged and he didn't immediately say, we just can't have this? (He could never have said that after his "everyone makes mistakes" defense of Geithner)

Was it when the extent of Daschle's conflict of interest and corruption came out?

Was it in the 12 hours between his defense on Monday and withdrawl on Tuesday?

What was his mistake?

Oh, and that pain I mentioned. It's the pain that those who bought the change line should feel.

I felt it for the last 2 years every time this compulsive liar opened his mouth.

An Escalating Regional Cold War – Part I: The 2009 Gaza War

By: Y. Carmon, Y. Yehoshua, A. Savyon, and H. Migron*

Table of Contents:
• Introduction
• The 2009 Gaza War: Timeline
• The Iranian-Saudi/Shi'ite-Sunni Rivalry in the Wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution
• The Escalation of the Conflict During Ahmadinejad's Presidency
• Iran Extends Its Influence Into the Arab World
• The Emergence of the Iran-Syria-Qatar-Hizbullah Axis
• The 2009 Gaza War Deepens the Schism Between the Two Camps
• After The War – The Schism Between the Two Camps is An Acknowledged Fact
• The Saudi Camp: Iran Is Responsible for the Rift in the Arab World
• "The Trojan Horse" – Qatar's Role in Consolidating the Iranian Axis
• Two Camps, Two Contrasting Approaches to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
• Notes


Introduction
The recent Gaza war was portrayed by the international media as a local military conflict between Israel and Hamas. However, this war, like the 2006 war in Lebanon and various other military and political events in the last three decades in the Middle East have a common denominator – namely, all stem from the conflict between revolutionary Iran and the Saudi Kingdom and the respective camps of each. This conflict is key to understanding the Middle East in the 21st century.

This Saudi-Iranian conflict, whose various aspects – geostrategic, religious, ethnic, and economic – have been affecting the Middle East for the past 30 years, began with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Since then, there have been lulls (especially during the era of former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami), but the conflict flared up again after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose to power. The conflict has now escalated into an actual cold war, and is reflected in the emergence of two distinct blocs in the Middle East: the Iranian axis (comprising Iran, Syria, Qatar, Hizbullah and Hamas) and the Saudi-Egyptian camp, with which most of the other Arab countries are identified.
This schism, and cold war, will have a major impact on the local, regional, and international level, severely restricting options for diplomatic activity, to resolve the intra-Palestinian rift, the Israeli-Arab conflict, and the problem of a nuclear Iran.

The 2009 Gaza War: Timeline
The Gaza war broke out on December 27, 2008, after Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al refused – reportedly on orders from Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki(1) – to attend talks for a Cairo-brokered intra-Palestinian agreement. Instead, he announced in Damascus that the tahdia with Israel had ended and would not be renewed, as his men in Gaza fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel.

As soon as the fighting started, Syria and Qatar attempted to convene an emergency Arab League summit in order to help Hamas. This move was blocked by Egypt and Saudi Arabia at the December 31, 2008 Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo, where it was decided only to conduct international diplomatic activity aimed at stopping the hostilities. According to reports, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said at a closed meeting with E.U. foreign ministers that "Hamas must not be allowed to emerge triumphant from the present confrontation."(2)

Nevertheless, Qatar and Syria persisted in their efforts, setting the emergency summit for January 16, 2009, to be attended by anyone who wished. At this point, a campaign of pressure on the other Arab countries was launched by both sides: Iran, Syria, and Qatar urged them to attend, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt pressed them not to.

This clash ended with a victory for the Saudi-Egyptian camp, in that the summit, held in Doha, was convened in the absence of a legal quorum.(3) To the dismay of some Arab countries, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to attend the summit as an observer. Also present as an observer was Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who expressed total support for Hamas.(4)

To reinforce its political victory, the Saudi-Egyptian camp enlisted international support by summoning all European leaders to a special weekend meeting at Sharm Al-Sheikh, on Sunday, January 18, 2009. The summit was attended by the entire European leadership, which rallied to show its endorsement of the Saudi-Egyptian camp.
The following day, January 19, an economic conference that had been planned in advance was held in Kuwait, and part of it was devoted to the war in Gaza. This conference, attended by all Arab leaders, was likewise dominated by the Saudi-Egyptian camp. At the conference, Qatar demanded that the resolution of the Doha conference be endorsed, but Saudi Arabia and Egypt rejected its demand, and the conference ended with no resolutions – namely, that Egypt revoke its peace agreement with Israel, and Saudi Arabia withdraw its Middle East peace initiative.

On January 18, Hamas was compelled to accept the ceasefire declared unilaterally by Israel the day before, as well as Egypt's mediation in the intra-Palestinian talks – two demands it had categorically rejected prior to the war.

It can therefore be said that, unlike the 2006 war in Lebanon and the subsequent clash, in 2008, between Hizbullah and the March 14 Forces, which ended in Lebanon's falling under the control of Hizbullah and the Iranian-Syrian axis,(5) the Gaza war yielded an achievement for the opposite side. It ended with Hamas defeated on the ground and with a political victory for the Saudi-Egyptian camp on the regional level.

The Iranian-Saudi/Shi'ite-Sunni Rivalry in the Wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution
The Iranian-Saudi conflict is rooted in Iran's aspirations to regional hegemony – both geostrategic and religious – which pose a threat to Saudi Arabia. From the onset of the Islamic Revolution era and Ayatollah Khomeini's rule (1979-89), Iran's attitude to Saudi Arabia was marked by ideological and political enmity, stemming from the centuries-old religious, social, and ethnic rift between the Sunni-Wahhabi Arab society and the Shi'ite Persian one. The Sunnis perceive the Shi'ites as a political sect that seceded from Islam, while the Shi'ites regard the Sunnis, and especially the Wahhabis, as a radical apostate political sect that has taken over the Muslim holy places.

This rivalry, which emanates from revolutionary Iran's competition with Saudi Arabia for the leadership of the Muslim world, reached its height in 1984, when thousands of Iranian pilgrims rioted in the streets of Mecca, calling for the overthrow of the Saudi regime. The Saudis forcibly quelled the riots, closing Mecca to Iranian pilgrims for several years. The Iranian threat also prompted the Saudis to support Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.

The wave of solidarity with Iran's Islamic Revolution that engulfed the Sunni world prompted Saudi Arabia to exert great efforts in strengthening Sunni Islam in general and Wahhabi Islam in particular. To this end, Saudi Arabia acted mainly on two levels: giving massive support to the jihad in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s until the Soviets were defeated, and investing billions of dollars, over two decades and more, in establishing and maintaining schools, mosques, and other educational and religious institutions in Sunni communities worldwide. These efforts reversed much of the popularity of the Iranian revolution.

Saudi-Iranian enmity declined during the term of Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani, and declined even more during the presidency of his successor, Mohammad Khatami. During Khatami's presidency, Iran strove to rejoin the international community by relaxing its efforts to export the revolution and by seeking to reconcile with its neighbors in the Gulf.

The Escalation of the Conflict During Ahmadinejad's Presidency
With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rise to power in 2005, the conflict reemerged, with a vengeance. Ahmadinejad reverted to Iran's previous policy of anti-Saudi hegemony, by pushing the export of the revolution, and promoting a messianic Shi'ite vision that stresses the imminent appearance of the Mahdi and the reestablishment of the great Persian Empire. In his second television appearance following his election, he said: "The message of the [Islamic] Revolution is global, and not restricted to a specific time or place. It is a human message, and it will move forward. Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer. Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountaintops of the world."(6)

The message of reviving revolutionary values became a recurring motif in Ahmadinejad's speeches: "In the recent elections, the [Iranian] people proved that they believe in the [Islamic] Revolution and want to see its ideals revived… This revolution was a continuation of the movement of the prophets, and all the political, economic, and cultural goals of the [Iranian] state must therefore be geared towards realizing the Islamic ideals… The followers of this divine school of Islamic thought are doing everything in their power to prepare the ground for the coming [of the Shi'ite messiah, the Mahdi]… It is our duty to guide the people back to these glorious ideals, and to lead the way towards the establishment of an advanced and powerful Islamic society that will be a model [to others]… Iran must emerge as the most powerful and advanced state…"(7)

"The Iranian people, as well as the Iranian government, which has emerged out of the will of the Iranian people, will defend their right to nuclear research and technology... The older people present here surely remember that one of our slogans during the revolution was, 'We will convert the entire world to Islam with our logic.' We are confident that the Islamic logic, culture, and discourse can prove their superiority in all fields over all theories and schools of thought."(8)

In a recent speech at the mausoleum of Ayatollah Khomeini marking the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad said: "Even though the revolution took place in Iran, it is not confined to Iran alone... Even after 30 years, [the revolution] is alive. We are [still] at the beginning of our road, and there are great changes still before us. This great revolution will continue until justice is inculcated [throughout the world]."(9)

Ahmadinejad's declarations about restoring the glory of the Shi'ite Persian Empire in the region, and the revival of the revolutionary rhetoric by other Iranian leaders – all backed by the regime's leading ayatollahs – were perceived by the Arab countries, and especially by Saudi Arabia, as a reemergence of the Iranian threat.

The religious-ideological threat was compounded by Iran's attempt to position itself as a regional military superpower, and by its determination to develop nuclear capabilities in addition to its long-range missile capabilities. Iran's insistence on developing nuclear technology despite international opposition was perceived by the Sunni Muslim world as a threat to it.

Iran Extends Its Influence Into the Arab World
Another factor contributing to the conflict was Iran's effort to increase its influence throughout the Arab world. Iran's activity in Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime, and the rise in the Shi'ites' status in that country after the war, intensified Saudi fears, and the fears of other Sunni countries, about the emergence of an "Iranian/Shi'ite crescent" in the very heart of the Sunni world.

Saudi Arabia responded by increasing its support for the Sunni minority in Iraq, for various Muslim and Christian forces in Lebanon, and for others who were confronting Iranian threats in their territory (e.g. in Yemen, Sudan, and Palestine).

The military and political achievements of Hizbullah, Iran's wing in Lebanon, during the 2006 war and in the 2008 Doha agreement (which de facto gave Lebanon to Hizbullah's control) were likewise perceived as part of Iran's bid for regional hegemony – especially in light of statements by Iranian officials. Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said after the signing of the Doha agreement: "We see this political victory in the regional arena as a harbinger of [even] greater victories..." He added that Nasrallah had "carried out some of [Khomeini's] teachings."(10)

After the Lebanon war, Saudi-Sunni concerns about Iran's growing aspirations for regional dominance came under more intensive and open discussion in the Arab world. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit said that the Iranians "were trying to spread [their influence] and impose their idiosyncratic ideology over the region."(11) He also accused Iran of "trying to use Arab cards to realize interests and goals that are not Arab,"(12) and said, "It is necessary to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear military power."(13)

Similar concerns were also voiced in the Saudi and Egyptian press. In the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh , Saudi columnist Muhammad bin Ali Al-Mahmoud described Iran's policy under Ahmadinejad, stating: "The change in the Iranian arena has led to the emergence of a Nazi-like atmosphere [there, and to the voicing of] empty slogans that are [even] more violent and bombastic [than those heard] during the first [Iranian] revolution [of 1979]...(14) Sadly, the Iranian threat is not just a theoretical [construct] whose nature and course is a matter of debate among scholars. It has become a reality, and there is no difference between the model [represented by] the terroristic Al-Qaeda and the one [represented by] the Iranian party in Lebanon [i.e., Hizbullah]..."

Al-Mahmoud warned about Iran's "octopus-like expansion," saying: "Iran wants to control the region, not by spreading its ideology... but by maintaining armed organizations [in Arab countries]... it violates their loyalty to their homelands, replacing it with loyalty to Iran. This, especially since Iran is a country that does not spread tolerance or a culture of moderation, but... a culture of one-sided hegemony, as part of a racist effort to impose a kind of occupation..."(15)

In an article in the Saudi government daily Al-Watan , Saudi columnist 'Ali Sa'd Al-Moussa wrote that the Arab countries were being subjected to "Persian colonialism," as evidenced by the Iranian "cantons and districts on the map of the Arab world..." He added: "Iran has become a major and central player in Arab politics... Today we are seeing new signs of Persian colonialism. This is a [new], more advanced colonial model: We are no longer talking of troops occupying [certain] regions or of flags [flying] over public buildings. The colonialism of the modern era is manifested by the submission of [various regional forces to Iran]... Iran chose [regions] on the Arab map and attacked them without [even] pulling the trigger. Its entire plan is being implemented by Arabs."(16)
The Emergence of the Iran-Syria-Qatar-Hizbullah Axis
As part of Iran's bid for regional hegemony, a political and military axis has formed, comprising not only Iran and Shi'ites in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, but also various Sunni forces that have an interest in opposing Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It was during the 2006 Lebanon war that a distinct Iran-Syria-Qatar-Hizbullah axis first emerged to oppose the Saudi-Egyptian camp.(17) At a later stage, this axis expanded to include Hamas, which has in recent years received increasing support from Iran, as well as from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Lately, Syria and Iran have been striving to add Turkey to their ranks, and have met with some cooperation on the part of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.(18)

Saudi Arabia, for its part, has been trying to pry some of Iran's Sunni allies away from it.(19)

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem spoke of the "strategic alliance" among members of the Iranian axis, saying: "Our relations with Iran are strategic, and our relations with Turkey are also strategic, and we hope that our relations with the Arabs will be [strategic] as well. Our relations with Qatar are strategic, as are our relations with 'Oman, Algeria, and Libya, and we hope that in the future this [framework will expand] to include additional [countries] as well… We are acting in accordance with our interests and in the service of the Arab national cause and national security. To this end, we are coordinating with Iran and Turkey, and we are not ashamed of this… We coordinate [our efforts] towards our common goal – [which is finding a way] to protect the Palestinian resistance and the national resistance in Lebanon, by creating [strategic] depth for them."(20)

Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad spoke in a similar vein in a September 2008 interview with Iran's Al-Alam TV: "The strategic ties [between Syria and Iran] have proved to be of importance for the region in recent decades, but their real results have emerged [only] in the last 10 years. These include the victory of the resistance in Lebanon, and the unswerving fortitude of the resistance in Palestine since the Intifada, which began in 2000… We see before us a black slate dotted with bright spots that were once tiny but are now steadily increasing in size. This underscores the importance of [Syrian-Iranian] cooperation and the correctness of the political policy of Syria and Iran. Many countries that once objected to this policy are now beginning to realize its correctness, and to pursue a similar policy themselves…"(21)

The 2009 Gaza War Deepens the Schism Between the Two Camps
Just prior to its outbreak, the two camps engaged in reciprocal attacks. Syria and Iran accused Saudi Arabia and Egypt of pursuing a pro-Israel and pro-American policy and of sabotaging the efforts of the resistance movements. Saudi King 'Abdallah was branded by Syria as an "infidel" and "collaborator with the Imperialist Satan," while Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was called a "traitor" and a "tyrant" who should be assassinated like Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for their part, claimed that Iran and Syria were striving to destabilize the region by interfering in internal Arab affairs and by nurturing the resistance movements in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority. They stressed that Syria was trying to divide the Arab ranks and was assisting Iran – a non-Arab country – in taking over the Middle East, to the detriment of Arab interests. (22)

After the war, the Iranian leaders boasted of the support they had given to Hamas – whose actions, they claimed, corresponded to the goals of the Islamic Revolution. The leaders also leveled harsh criticism at the Saudi-Egyptian axis.(23) Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said that both Hizbullah's victory in 2006 and Hamas' victory in Gaza were fruits of the "great tree" that is Iran's Islamic Revolution.(24) Iranian Expediency Council Chairman Hashemi Rafsanjani declared at a rally that "the residents of Gaza, [just like] Hizbullah, have managed to defeat the army of the Zionist regime thanks to the beneficial influence of Iran."(25) Guardian Council Chairman Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said in his Friday sermon in Tehran: "[In 2006], the host of Hizbullah [fighters], inspired by Islamic Iran, managed to deliver a crushing blow to Israel, to America and to the other Western countries supporting Israel. Now the same thing has happened in Gaza. Wherever Iran has a toehold, it will save and rescue [the Muslims]..."(26) The Iranian daily Kayhan , which is close to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated that Israel's war on Hamas had created a new Middle East, and had proved that the entire alliance consisting of Israel, the U.S., the European Union, Egypt and Saudi Arabia could not defeat a small organization like Hamas, despite the use of massive military force.(27)

The pro-Saudi camp, for its part, accused Hamas of serving Iranian and Syrian interests rather than those of the Palestinians. Egyptian President Mubarak declared that "Egypt will not let anyone make political profits and increase their [regional] influence at the expense of Palestinian blood."(28) Egyptian Foreign Minister Abu Al-Gheit accused Iran of using its Arab proxies to bargain with the U.S. and further its own ends. In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, he said: "All non-Arab hands should be kept off the Palestinian cause, and even some Arab hands." He added, "Iran... seeks to grab as many Arab bargaining chips as possible, in order to tell the next U.S. administration: If you wish to discuss any subject – especially the security of the Gulf or Iran's nuclear dossier – you will have to speak with us..."(29) Abu Al-Gheit made similar statements in 2007, when he said that Iran's activities had encouraged Hamas to carry out the Gaza coup, and that this "threatened the national security of Egypt, which is only a stone's throw away from Gaza."(30)

Senior Palestinian Authority officials likewise pointed to Iranian involvement in Gaza. PA Presidency secretary-general Al-Tayyeb 'Abd Al-Rahim stated that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had told the Hamas leaders to resume the resistance, and to keep Egypt from playing any role in the Palestinian dialogue. This, Al-Rahim said, was why Hamas refused to renew the tahdia and to continue the dialogue with Fatah.(31) PLO Secretary Yasser 'Abd Rabbo said that Hamas was advancing a regional conspiracy to turn Gaza into an independent entity separate from the West Bank, and to establish an Islamic emirate there, supported by Iran.(32)

Several days before Israel launched its Gaza offensive, the editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gumhouriyya , MP Muhammad 'Ali Ibrahim, published a series of articles under the title "Hamas-Damascus-Iran – The New Axis of Evil."(33) Once the Israeli offensive had begun, Ibrahim wrote: "Hamas, Hizbullah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Tehran have decided to put the Palestinian cause and its martyrs into Iran's hands. However, everyone is forgetting one important point – namely, that we will not hand over our people's capabilities to lunatics who hide out in Syria and who fire not a single bullet at Israel... There is a plan to set the entire region ablaze, and to kill as many Palestinian and Lebanese martyrs as possible, in order to expose the helplessness of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the [entire] moderate Arab axis...(34)
After The War – The Schism Between the Two Camps is An Acknowledged Fact
The Western media has largely ignored the new reality in the Middle East – namely, the schism and the escalating cold war between the two camps – as well as its far-reaching political implications. However, in the Arab world, this reality has become a publicly acknowledged fact, and is being intensely discussed.

Nasrallah's deputy Sheikh Na'im Qassem explained that Hizbullah was proud to belong the Iranian axis, which was hostile to the U.S. and its Arab supporters. He stated: "In today's world, there are two mutually opposing camps – the camp of the U.S. and its allies, and the camp of the resistance and its allies. The important point is that the American camp, which includes Israel [and is characterized by] corruption, aggression, and monopoly, is a hostile camp, and we, the resistance camp, must therefore oppose it staunchly and forcefully… [Our camp] will emerge triumphant. It is impossible to express solidarity [with the Palestinians] without supporting the resistance... Today, Gaza is the very embodiment of resistance. Everyone who supported Gaza [during the war] is on the side of the resistance, while everyone who did not support it, but was against it, is on the side of the U.S. and Israel…"

Qassem added: "Some thought that if they malign us [by calling us] allies of Iran, Syria, and Hamas, it would bother us. [Well], let me say that you can add Chavez and Bolivia [to the list of our allies], and all the free peoples in the world. We will [all] form a united front against the U.S. and Israel…"(35)

Dr. Majed Abu Madhi, columnist for the Syrian government daily Al-Ba'ath and lecturer at the University of Damascus, argued that the war in Gaza had exposed not only the rift in the Arab world between the regimes that support the resistance and those that oppose it, but also the conflict between the rulers who object to the resistance, and their peoples who support it. He wrote: "It has become patently clear which countries support the resistance. It has also become patently clear which [Arab] regimes are the ones that the U.S. calls 'moderate' –[those that] oppose the resistance and even conspire against it. In addition, there is another kind of division, [namely,] between countries where the position of the government and the political leadership is aligned with that of the general public, and countries in which the position of the government and the leaders is at odds with that of the public. We have discovered a gap – nay, a deep abyss – between the wishes of the rulers [who reject the resistance] and those of their people [who support it]."(36)

The Saudi Camp: Iran Is Responsible for the Rift in the Arab World
The pro-Saudi camp accused Iran of causing the rift in the Arab world. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal said that the current disagreement among the Arabs was the result of "intervention by non-Arab forces" in Arab affairs – referring to Iran.(37) During the Kuwait summit, Egyptian President Mubarak likewise hinted at Iranian interference, when he accused "internal and external" forces of dividing and weakening the Arab world.(38)

Editorials in newspapers associated with the Saudi-Egyptian camp stated that Iran was sowing division in the Arab world as part of its plan to achieve regional hegemony, and accused Arab forces such as Syria and Qatar of cooperating with this plan. Osama Saraya, editor-in-chief of the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram , wrote: "Like the Persians in all [past] eras, the contemporary [Iranian] clerics think that [all] the Arabs, from the ocean to the Gulf, are a bunch of camel herders or ignoramuses. [Therefore, they think] that they can still market illusions that hide their true intentions, which are to take control of our region and to annex it to the empire they hope [to reestablish]... You must stop spreading your religion [in other countries, and confine these efforts] to your land alone. You must respect the [other] Muslim countries and the treaties signed between the Sunnis and Shi'ites [in which they agreed] to refrain from spreading [their respective] religions and from taking over [each other's] lands."(39)

The editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gumhouriyya , MP Muhammad 'Ali Ibrahim, wrote in his daily column: "Iran's ideology advocates eliminating [all] nationalities and national borders... The problem with the Iranian ideas is that [Iran] has passed them on to its followers in the Middle East... And the most dangerous [problem] with this Iranian philosophy... is that it calls for establishing states within states... This philosophy has indeed borne fruit in some parts of the Arab world. We have several examples of this: Hizbullah won the elections in Lebanon, and its state [within a state] was naturally stronger than Lebanon [itself]. [Furthermore], its militias were stronger than the government's armed forces. [The same thing] has happened with Hamas... [and with] the Shi'ites in Bahrain, who are wreaking havoc in their country [in an attempt to establish] a Shi'ite state alongside the Sunni Bahraini kingdom. In Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood is using its representation in parliament to try and take over the government and the leadership of the state... It is a dangerous and destructive idea to sacrifice the country for the sake of religion..."(40)
"The Trojan Horse" – Qatar's Role in Consolidating the Iranian Axis
It should be noted that Qatar has played a crucial role in exacerbating the rift in the Arab world by initiating the January 16, 2009 Doha summit, to the dismay of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Qatar's inviting of Iranian President Ahmadinejad to the summit against the will of several Arab countries (such as the UAE, which responded by canceled its participation) clearly identified the summit as a convention of the Iranian-Syrian axis. The summit's pro-Iranian and anti-Saudi orientation was underscored by the fact that it called on Egypt to revoke its peace agreement with Israel, and on Saudi Arabia to withdraw its initiative for peace with it.

After the war ended, Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al thanked Qatar for its support for his movement during the fighting. In a speech in Doha, he said: "Two weeks ago, we came to you and asked you to stand by our side, and today we thank Qatar, its Emir, and its people [for responding to this request]."

Galal Dweidar, former editor-in-chief of the Egyptian government daily Al-Akhbar , characterized the Doha summit as "a conference in support of the Persian [expansionist] ambitions" and called Qatar "a Trojan horse designed to pave the way for the Shi'ite Persian invasion of [the lands belonging to] Muhammad's nation and the Sunnis."(41)

Al-Ahram editor Osama Saraya wrote in a similar vein: "By calling the Doha summit, Qatar hoped not only to undermine all the Arab actions, but also to deepen the rift among the Arabs and to put the joint Arab action in the hands of the axis of destruction and evil… [i.e. in the hands of] the Iranian axis – whose role was exposed and rendered completely transparent during the recent events in the region, and in the wake of Israel's Gaza offensive."(42)

Two Camps, Two Contrasting Approaches to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Iran's and Syria's support of the resistance, as well as Egypt's and Saudi Arabia's support of a peace agreement with Israel, can both be understood in light of the Iranian – Saudi schism.

The Saudi camp's opposition to Hizbullah during the 2006 war, and its opposition to Hamas during the Gaza war, were both part of its conflict with Iran. Likewise, the Saudi camp's determination to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is meant to strengthen its position vis-à-vis Iran and its allies. Egypt is demanding to sponsor the intra-Palestinian dialogue and the current arrangements between Gaza and Israel, in order to prevent Iran from taking over Gaza via Hamas. Saudi Arabia, for its part, is striving to promote its peace initiative with Israel as a strategic option that will consolidate its position vis-à-vis the Iranian axis – at the same time as this axis attempts to undermine the Saudi position through its support for the resistance against Israel.

In fact, the Iranian axis has called to revoke all initiatives for peace with Israel and all manifestations of normalization with it – which it terms "collaboration" by the Arab regimes with Israel and the U.S. As part of this approach, Qatar and Mauritania announced at the Doha summit that they were severing diplomatic ties with Israel. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei even equated the moderate Arab leaders who maintain ties with Israel with the Jews at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who were considered to be his enemies. In a letter to Hamas leader Isma'il Haniya, Khamenei said: "The Arab traitors must realize that their fate will be no better than that of the Jews at the Battle of Al-Ahzab [i.e. the Jews of the Al-Quraidha tribe who were killed for allegedly conspiring against the Prophet]."(43)

The Iranian axis contends that the correct course of action vis-à-vis Israel is resistance. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad declared the Arab Peace Initiative "dead," and coined a new phrase by defining the resistance as "a way to achieve peace," explaining that "peace without resistance is surrender."(44)

Editor of the Egyptian government daily Teshreen Samira Al-Masalma explained that the disagreement between the camps was profound and could not be bridged: "The dispute between the Arabs is no longer a matter of different positions or different approaches to the solution, as was the case in the past. [Today,] the dispute is about the fundamentals, the means, the [proper] conduct and the practical approach to the crucial issues. This is what makes the disagreements so blatant.

"Both in July 2006 and during the aggression against Gaza… two [different] positions emerged among the official Arab regimes... According to one position, there is no peace without resistance, while according to the other, surrender is the key to peace and resistance is but meaningless 'adventurism.' These two positions are not merely theoretical. The [proponents of] the former support the resistance in every possible way, while the [proponents of] the latter are openly involved in destroying it."(45)

Furthermore, spokesmen for the Iranian-Syrian axis hinted at the possibility of a further escalation in the region. Syrian President Al-Assad said: "It was the 1982 [Lebanon-Israel] war that gave birth to the resistance in its present form and brought about the liberation [of Lebanon]. The 2002 massacre in Jenin [sparked] a situation of resistance in Palestine. In 2006, the same thing happened [in Lebanon], and today [in 2009] we see the same thing [in Gaza]... There are displays of resistance, and each of these [further] consolidates the course of the resistance and the validity of its ideologies... These are small victories that are part of a great triumph. They will continue in the future, and undoubtedly there will be further confrontations in one form or another – not all of them necessarily armed. But these victories are like steps on a ladder leading to further victories, and we cannot attain the final victory without them."(46)

Ibrahim Al-Amin, chairman of the pro-Syrian and pro-Hizbullah Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar , claimed that the Doha summit had provided a new impetus for the resistance, which would now become the preferred strategy not only of the resistance organizations themselves but also of certain Arab regimes. He wrote: "The most important point is that the Arab-Israeli conflict has entered a new phase… The meeting in Doha served as a lever for the camp that advocates resistance, [and resistance] has now become a dominant part of the operation methods employed [vis-à-vis Israel] – also by the [Arab] regimes and governments. This will have repercussions for relations with Europe and the U.S. It will also affect the situation in Iraq, which is the largest Arab country under U.S. occupation…"

Al-Amin contended that "the Arab world would [now] face a spell of score-settling even worse than the one witnessed by Lebanon in 2006 in the wake of the [Israeli] aggression."(47)

Hizbullah deputy leader Sheikh Na'im Qassem said: "We believe in resistance as a means [of bringing about] liberation and change... [for] the land and the people cannot be liberated from the force of arrogance [i.e. the U.S.] and from its pampered protectorate, Israel, in any other way... We carry out this resistance with our own hands in order to take back our rights. We do not [intend to count on] the [U.N.] Security Council or the superpowers; we will liberate our lands with our [own] weapons, as we did in the past and will [continue] to do [in the future]... The resistance we mean [to carry out] is military, and we say to the world: We will arm ourselves more and more, and we call to arm all the resistance [movements] that fight the enemy who occupies the land..."(48)

The Saudi-Egyptian camp, on the other hand, opposed the resistance strategy, and rejected calls to sever ties with Israel or withdraw the Arab Peace Initiative. The Saudi foreign minister said, "The Arab Initiative is still relevant," adding that it "places Israel under considerable pressure."(49)

Some even called to return to the original version of the Saudi Peace Initiative, before amendments were introduced in 2002 in response to demands by Syria, such as a clause acknowledging the Palestinian right of return. An editorial in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal stated: "The Arab Peace Initiative, especially in its original form, before it was injected with Syrian-Lahoudian(50) corruption during the 2002 Beirut summit [meaning the inclusion of the right of return for the Palestinian refugees], was a comprehensive strategic vision... Lasting peace is a condition for the success of the programs for reform in all the Arab countries. For the sake of all this, the Arab peace initiative was and still is alive and well, and is the only strategy that the Arabs can propose in today's world."

The daily also called "to remove the Syrian-Lahoudian flaws from the Arab Peace Initiative, and to reintroduce as it was it in its original form."(51)
*Y. Carmon is the President of MEMRI; Y. Yehoshua is Director of Research at MEMRI; A. Savyon is director of MEMRI's Iranian Media Project; and H. Migron is a Research Fellow at MEMRI .

Ouch!! The "Dasch" to the bottom...

Well, make it 3... or 4, depending on whether you count Eric Cantor aproving the pardon of FLN terrorists...

Tom Daschle, President Obama's nominee for the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a major income tax problem.

But more than the few hundred thousand in back taxes (he received private car service for several YEARS and anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the tax code knows that is taxable) that he mysteriously realized he owed when he was nominated (just like The Treasury Secretary Tim Geightner) the scandal has revealed an almost impossible to believe web of dirty money that Daschle has received from numerous interests that he was once voting on legislation for.

He had a $1 million dollar a year salary from a media consulting company founded by Leo Hindery, formerly of the YES network. What is his media expertise?

He earned $2 million a year from a powerhouse Washington Lobbying firm, but because Senate rules prohibited him from being a lobbyist, he was declared a "special advisor". Right.

He received monies from insurance regulators, and insurance companies, (he won't say, b/c the disclosure form simply lists "up to $5000" or "Over $5000" and he is over), investment firms, and the list goes on.

Almost all of whom he had legislative ties to.

Oh, and not to mention the fact that, again in the face of Obama's new rules that he waives every day, his wife is a professional lobbyist.

Amazingly, Congress is going to overlook this one as well.

So far the candidate for "change" and transparency in government, has lost his Labor Secretary because of a financial scandal (Bill Richardson), should have lost his Treasury Secretary who will run the agency he claims to not know the rules of (Geightner) and appointed an attorney General who at best was inattentive to the types of people he approved for pardon. And now we have the third dirty financial appointee.

Change you can believe in.