Tag Archives: Israel

International news

Welcome aboard, Palestinians

This just in …

High Plains Blogger just recorded two hits from the Palestinian Territories.

That makes 122 countries/sovereign governments that have responded to commentary on this blog.

There might be more from Palestine, given that I like writing about the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That, and the fact that I’ve actually been to the West Bank, which is governed by the Palestinian Authority.

A little more than 190 countries belong to the United Nations. I’m hoping to hear from all of them. Only about 70 more to go and then we’ll have a worldwide sweep.

Keep reading. Pass it on. Share with your friends.

International news

Marking the end of a life-changing journey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgdb6r0MQ4

Sixty-five years of living has brought me many blessings … and the occasional curse.

I want to mark one of those blessings with this blog post.

Six years ago today, I bid so long to four young people with whom I’d spent four marvelous weeks in the Holy Land. We were there as part of a Rotary International Group Study Exchange. I am a member of Rotary and I had the high honor of accompanying these four individuals to Israel.

The link I’ve attached to this blog gives you a slight hint of what we experienced. We went to many of the locations noted on the video.

But this post really isn’t about that. It’s more about them, my dear friends, who traveled with me the entire length and breadth of one of the world’s most fascinating countries.

Aida, Fernando, Shirley and Katt all hail from West Texas. One of them has moved to Dallas, but we stay in touch. We all do. They’ve become four of my best friends.

The GSE is designed to acquaint young professionals with colleagues abroad. It’s also designed to recruit young Rotary members, to keep the service organization alive and vibrant.

Our journey began at Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport on May 9, 2009. It ended on June 7, 2009 when we bid adieu to three of our team members at David Ben-Gurion International Airport. One of them stayed behind in Tel Aviv.

We’d laughed and cried together. We enjoyed sumptuous food. Prayed together on the Mount of Olives. We stayed in Israeli hosts’ homes, met their families and were treated to sights and sounds the usual tourist doesn’t get to see.

We peered into Gaza, stood on the Golan Heights, and swam in the Red Sea, the Dead Sea and the “Med” Sea.

We walked where Jesus walked in Jerusalem and where he preached near Galilee. We toured churches, synagogues and mosques.

I cannot possibly list all of what we saw, heard and felt.

We made new friends with members of another GSE team from The Netherlands that traveled through Israel with us. I’m still in touch with a couple of that team’s members.

It was one of those life experiences that you just cannot quantify. You can’t put a price on what one learns on a journey such as that.

I was delighted to have taken that journey with those four young people.

My time in Israel didn’t end at Ben-Gurion airport. I stayed on another week with my wife, who’d flown over to join me. We acted like typical tourists, staying at a B&B in Jerusalem. I got to show her some of what I’d experienced.

Would we return to Israel? In a heartbeat.

 

 

International news

Biden: U.S., Israel 'love each other'

Vice President Joe Biden wants to set the record straight.

The United States and Israel are like “family.” The nations argue with each other, he said, but when the chips are down they “protect each other.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/joe-biden-israel-relationship-117313.html?hp=b1_r2

The vice president sought to tamp down the heated rhetoric of recent months over differences between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His remarks came at a ceremony marking the 67th anniversary of Israel’s independence.

Has the U.S.-Israel partnership been spat free over those six-plus decades? Hardly. Indeed, the differences pre-date the Obama administration. President Carter had difficulty negotiating the Israeli-Egypt peace agreement when he visited played host in 1978 to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at Camp David. Carter’s nemesis was Begin. But the deal got done.

Israelis know that the United States stands with them in critical moments. They know their principal ally will not forsake them when they face a direct threat from the neighbors.

“Sometimes we drive each other crazy, but we love each other — and we protect each other,” Biden said.

Isn’t that enough?

International news

Iran, North Korea 'agreements' draw comparison

Is history going to repeat itself with this “framework agreement” regarding Iran’s nuclear program?

Oh, man. Let’s hope not.

Critics of the deal reached with Iran to scale back its nuclear development program are comparing it to a deal hammered out in 1994 between the United States and another rogue nation, North Korea. President Clinton hailed it then as a pact that would make the world safer. A dozen years, North Korea detonated its first nuclear device.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/echoes-of-clinton-in-obamas-awful-iran-deal/2015/04/06/e6a6b44c-dc59-11e4-acfe-cd057abefa9a_story.html

The world isn’t safer, obviously.

Now the world is watching to see how the Iran nuclear agreement plays out. President Obama is using many of the same terms that his predecessor did in hailing the North Korea agreement.

Here’s what I think ought to happen.

The Obama administration ought to be sure to take every lesson learned from the mistakes of the Clinton administration and be double-, maybe triple-dog sure it doesn’t repeat them.

Iran is supposed to reduce dramatically the number of its centrifuges. It’s supposed to allow international inspections. It’s supposed to guarantee that it won’t develop a nuclear bomb and that it will use its nuclear program purely for “peaceful purposes.” It must comply … or else.

And the “or else” must be a stiffening of economic sanctions on the country.

What’s more, the United States and its allies — and I include Israel in this group — cannot take the “military option” off the table.

Will history repeat itself? Not if we’ve learned anything from what history already has taught us.

business news, International news, political news

Iran nuke deal makes economic sense

Oil prices could drop by as much as $15 per barrel of crude if the Iran nuclear agreement becomes final.

Who knew this agreement could be beneficial to our pocketbooks?

This bit of news comes from the Energy Information Administration and it portends even greater savings for American motorists — such as yours truly — who are continually looking for more disposable income.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/iran-nuclear-deal-seen-cutting-oil-prices-by-dollar15-a-barrel/ar-AAayCbt

“If a comprehensive agreement that results in the lifting of Iranian oil-related sanctions is reached, then this could significantly change the … forecast for oil supply, demand, and prices,” the EIA said in a report. “However, the timing and order that sanctions could be suspended is uncertain.”

The key, of course, is the sanctions issue. Iran has a good bit of oil. The sanctions imposed by much of the world have prevented Iran from pumping and selling oil around the world. Suppose the sanctions are lifted and Iran returns to the energy-producing community of nations, thus putting more oil on the market.

Whether the sanctions get lifted in a timely manner could have an impact on the price of crude oil worldwide. The lifting of those sanctions, of course, depend entirely on Iran’s ability to comply with the agreement announced April 2 by the United States and its negotiating partners.

The framework agreement reduces Iran’s nuclear production capability significantly, with the intent of prevent the rogue nation from producing a nuclear bomb — which it has all but threatened to use against Israel. The Israelis, naturally, take those threats quite seriously — and those threats have contributed to Israel’s outright opposition to any deal with Iran.

Let us not forget that delays could come from the U.S. Congress, which comprises members who act as though they’d rather bomb Iran than talk to it.

The deal needs a chance to work. If it does, then one leading energy agency thinks oil consumers all around the world are going to reap some benefit.

International news

Waiting for some language in Iran deal

The Iran nuclear deal is going to require some major salesmanship in the United States.

The “sales team” must be headed by President Obama, who now needs to persuade Americans — notably Republicans in both houses of Congress — that the deal brokered with Iran will prevent that country from developing a nuclear weapon.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/iran-nuclear-pact-stirs-hope-%e2%80%94-and-fear-%e2%80%94-of-new-political-order-in-mideast/ar-AAapd0E

But some of us — me included — are waiting for some language to appear in the framework agreement hammered out by U.S. and other nations’ negotiators.

The language should include something like this: “Iran agrees that it will not ‘weaponize’ uranium at any time, ever.”

I haven’t seen such language in all the discussion since the announcement of the framework.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will abide by the terms of the deal if the other side — meaning much of the rest of the world — lifts the economic sanctions against Iran. He says his leadership isn’t “two-faced” and does not lie.

That’s good enough for me — not!

My understanding of the agreement is that there will be careful monitoring of Iranian intentions as it moves ahead with what’s left of its nuclear program. Iran has said all along it intends to develop nuclear power for domestic energy consumption only.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemns the agreement, saying it “legitimizes” Iran’s nuclear program and poses a grave threat to Middle East and world peace. Netanyahu’s concern is legitimate, given Iran’s stated objective of wiping Israel off the face of the planet.

However, as long as the powers can keep all eyes on Iran to ensure that it complies with the nuts and bolts of the deal — which still have to be worked out — then Netanyahu will have far less to worry about in the future.

Still, I am waiting for some written commitment from Iran that it won’t build a nuclear bomb.

Just, you know, for the record.

 

International news

Iran nuke deal: good or bad for the world?

I’m going to withhold final judgment on the Iran nuclear deal for a little while as I try to wrap my arms around what President Obama calls “historic” and what his critics — to no one’s surprise — call an “appeasement.”

I remain hopeful that the framework, as I understand it, is going to cut off “pathways” for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, as the president said today.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/237747-obama-hails-historic-iran-nuke-deal

If I had one misgiving about the impending deal it is the end of the economic sanctions. The European Union is going to end the sanctions on Iran almost immediately, while the United States will lift them in accordance with verification that Iran is remaining faithful to the terms of the agreement.

The U.S. portion of the sanctions removal sounds reasonable and verifiable, to my understanding of what was hammered out over the course of several months.

There are lots of nuts and bolts to this deal. The Iranians are going to stop enriching uranium at some locations, will transfer capabilities from one nuclear plant to another and juggle all kinds of contingencies in accordance with what the bargaining nations agreed on.

The result, though, must ensure that Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis, of course, oppose the deal. They’ve said all along that no deal is better than virtually anything that was discussed publicly with regard to the negotiation.

Congressional Republicans are blasting the framework. One GOP lawmaker used the “appeasement” language, conjuring up memories of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s declaration that Europe had found “peace in our time” in negotiating with Adolf Hitler just before all hell broke loose in September 1939.

Let’s not go there.

Instead, the principals have until June to hammer the details out. Congress will get to weigh in.

Iran’s nuclear program appears headed in another direction — away from its construction of a nuclear bomb.

I’m left to wonder initially: What can be so wrong with that?

 

International news

Forget the 'water's edge' stuff about foreign policy

It’s safe to suggest that the time-honored belief that partisanship ended at “the water’s edge” has now been inundated.

House Speaker John Boehner went to Israel this week and declared that the “world is on fire” and that the United States is doing too little to put it out. He offered a blistering critique of U.S. foreign policy while standing in the capital city of one our nation’s staunchest allies.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/boehner-israel-jerusalem-isil-netanyahu-iran-116600.html?hfp=t1_r

It’s a new day. Or perhaps it’s a continuation of an old way of thinking.

I don’t know which it is.

I do know that wherever he is, the late U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg is spinning in his grave.

It was Vandenberg, R-Mich., who criticized politicians for venturing overseas to criticize U.S. policymakers, coining the “water’s edge” definition of bipartisanship.

I’ve always thought it was wise to speak with a single voice, especially when politicians venture abroad to discuss foreign policy matters. Yes, I know that this affinity to blast presidents of the “other party” goes both ways and that Democratic pols have dissed Republican presidents as well as the other way around.

The speaker of the House, though, speaks with forked tongue when he warns of the world going up in flames and then promises to keep speaking out against the president of the United States — even as the world burns.

“I wouldn’t have believed that I would be involved in as much foreign policy as I am today,” Boehner said in Jerusalem. “And it certainly isn’t by choice. It’s just that the world is on fire. And I don’t think enough Americans or enough people in the administration understand how serious the problems that we’re facing in the world are.”

Is the speaker unaware that he well might be fanning those flames when he says such things?

 

International news

No deal on Iran nukes now looks possible

JUST IN: Parties agree to extend Iran nuclear talks until June.

***

So, what happens if Iran fails to strike a deal with other nations — including the United States — to end its nuclear enrichment program?

Might it be that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right, that “no deal is better than a bad deal”?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/in-iran-talks-failure-is-an-option-116528.html?hp=rc1_4

The deadline comes at the end this day. There might be a framework for a deal that sets up a new deadline.

If not, well, then more sanctions are due. Perhaps even the “military option” if Iran weaponizes the uranium that other nations want it to surrender.

The prospect of no deal shouldn’t be of grave concern.

U.S. negotiators insist, as they should, that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. No one on Earth trusts a nuclear-powered Islamic Republic of Iran, which has stated its No. 1 mission is to destroy Israel. The Israelis haven’t said it in so many words, but they clearly stand ready to strike Iran if it gets a whiff of a nuclear weapon being on developed. President Obama has refused repeatedly to take a military strike off the table as well.

What constitutes a “bad deal”? It would be one that allows sanctions to be lifted over time, which reportedly is one of the options being considered by U.S. and allied negotiators. It’s the kind of deal that Netanyahu has warned shouldn’t be allowed to occur.

We are dealing with a seriously rogue nation. Let us treat it as such.

 

International news

Barack and Bibi: Let's make peace

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are speaking to each other.

That’s good.

Now it’s time for the next step. Let’s stop squabbling and get back to a public understanding that Israel remains this nation’s most critical Middle East ally and the two heads of government need to return to having each other’s back.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/white-house-to-bibi-israel-your-move-116491.html?hp=t2_r

Netanyahu fanned the flames of anger between Washington and Jerusalem when, during the final days of his parliamentary election, he backed off on his previous support for a Palestinian state. Then his Likud Party won control of the Knesset and Bibi said, in effect, “I didn’t really mean what I said about the Palestinian state.”

As Politico reported, Bibi’s backtracking hasn’t exactly been accepted fully by the White House: “The White House has worked to cool down the rhetoric and public tension. But it’s not letting go. When Netanyahu insisted during the congratulatory phone call Obama waited to make that he was already backtracking and they’d get past this, an unimpressed Obama responded by saying, sure, but you said what you said. He and his aides believe it’s now up to Netanyahu to repair a rift that they stress is only about the peace process, not the larger commitment to Israel.”

Everyone on the planet knows that U.S.-Israeli ties are rock-solid, no matter what President Obama is saying these days about the frayed state of bilateral relations. If the shooting were to start, Bibi knows Barack — or whoever succeeds him in January 2017 — will be there.

It’s time to put this nastiness to rest. Make up in public, gentlemen.