Dumb Republicans

Dumb Republicans

I am a Republican and have voted Republican all along, except the President where I had voted for Kerry and Obama. Not only I voted for Obama, I campaigned and held ralliles for him.

A majority of us Republicans are moderates who want to get along with every one and envision a better world for one and all; a characteristic of all majorities. Unfortunately our party is infested by a few extremists and shamelessly the majority of us are silently enduring the collapse of our party. A few who are confused want to hang on to the Palins, McCains, Gingrichs, Romney’s, Rove’s, Limbaugh’s and others who are the very reason for this wreckage. Their creepy presence will have us lose some more Senate and congressional seats in 2010.

During the election campaign, any three minutes McCain or Romney had on the television they spilled nothing but hate and destruction or bombing others. That is not what we want, hence the Republicans dumped them.

Have you ever heard these guys speak about peace, civility, dialogue and co-existence? How can they? They are obsessed with fear and cannot think of peace for themselves or the Americans. They cloak themselves in Patriotism and Religion, as if others are not. The Limbaughs, Hannity's, Rileys and several others made their money by selling hate and fear, they made their good. We Americans are not dumb to keep buying their stupidities. They got us by our balls by lying to us and frightening the crap out of us after 9/11, but not any more. They have done more harm to our nation than any one else has ever done before, and now they deserve to be dumped.
Listen to them; “With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." As the author below adds, “People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.”

“What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist?” He was the same guy who was fooling around with another woman while accusing Clinton for the very same thing. The dumb Republicans in charge still give him the room to speak?

There is hope for us, if the silent majority of the Republicans have the balls to speak up and start purging the right winger extremists, we have a chance of regaining or perhaps gaining some seats in congress and senate and preserve our system of checks and balances. I would like to see a Republican Senate majority and Democrat Congressional majority, that way no decisions will be made without due deliberations. But we have to get smart and speak up.

http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republican-or-Democrat-which-way.asp

Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Writer, Blogger, Speaker, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and op-ed columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal site www.MikeGhouse.net

Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy:
The Conservative Stealth Strategy
Sunday 31 May 2009
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t Perspective

The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.

There are several fronts: empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.

Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.

Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing? Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.

The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does.

The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights. To hear her speak, go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVD1G4q0bA.

The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind, just out in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists-Politics/dp/0143115685).

In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy.

President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms - a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.

Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.

But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter of personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.

We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy, and its true meaning must be defended.

But the attack can be sneaky. Take David Brooks' column in The New York Times (May 29, 2009). He frames what he calls "The Empathy Issue" in terms of the use of emotions in decision-making. He is doing a conservative reframing of the issue. What is sneaky is that he starts by saying a number of true things about emotions. As Antonio Damasio pointed out in Descartes' Error, you can't make rational decisions without emotions. If you have a brain injury that wipes out your emotional capacity, you don't know what to want, since like and not-like mean nothing, and you can't tell what others will think of you. Here is Brooks:
People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.

Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.

Note the mixture of truth and non-truth. Yes, sensible decisions require emotions. Yes, people without empathy are sociopaths. Yes, we all make decisions based on models in our head of how the world works. That's basic cognitive science. Mixed in with it is conservative reframing. No, empathy is a lot more than a "social emotion." No, using models of the world in decision-making need not be a matter of emotion. It's just how real reason works.

Then the conclusion:

But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It's prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.

Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.

Empathy here has been reframed as emotion that is "idiosyncratic" - personal - a danger to reason. "Sentiments," that is, emotions, must be "disciplined" to fit "manners and morals, tradition and practice"- in short, the existing social and political order. This is perfect radical conservatism in the guise of sweet, moderate reasonableness. Where Rove and Krauthammer have the iron fists, Brooks has the velvet glove.

The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks' tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous:

Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/).
Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture.

What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind - Latinos and women - she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up.

The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs - and their pride - being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.

Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don't Think of an Elephant!
The attack on Sotomayor as an "activist judge" completes the pattern of radical conservative reasoning: Because of her empathy, which is personal feeling, which in turn is a form of racism, she will interpret the constitution not rationally, blindly, and objectively, but to suit her emotions.

It is vital at this point to understand how conservatives get away with the "activist judge" ploy. As any cognitive linguist knows, there is no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. The reason was given by, of all people, David Brooks, as we discussed above.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us,... begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work ... These models shape the way judges perceive the world.

These models also shape they way the most "strict constructionist" of judges read the Constitution. Such models are physically part of the brain and typically operate below the level of consciousness. Conservatives are thus as much "judicial activists" as anyone else.
So how do conservative Republicans get away with the "activist judge" ploy? Democrats hand it to them. Why? Because most Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses "models" (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly.

But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should.
Democrats make another move that allows them to keep their view of reason. They adopt the view of the "living constitution," which opens them up to charges of "judicial activism," charges made by conservative judicial activists. The source of the problem lies in the Democrats lack of understanding of their own unconscious reasoning processes. One of many Democrats deepest beliefs contradicts the facts about the brain and the mind and allows conservative judges to be activists while claiming to be strict constructionists.

Taken together, the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain.

Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.

How should Democrats respond?

Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy- real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness - which are necessary components of justice.

Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.»

George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The Political Mind," appears in paperback on June 2. To contact George Lakoff, email him atlakoff@truthout.org.

Face book; an experiment in pluralistic democracy

Face book; an experiment in pluralistic democracy
By Mike Ghouse, the Pluralist
Dallas, Texas

Face book is a market place which is open and free to individuals who want to be a part of it. Open just about anyone's profile, you will find pictures of people from different races, faiths, ethnicities, cultures and nationalities as their friends. Almost every one has a friend from several different groups.

Face book has broken all the barriers and continues to bring people together regardless of their affiliations. It is a true experiment in Pluralism - i.e., developing an attitude of accepting the otherness of other and respecting the God given uniqueness of each one of the seven billion of us, in this case 20 million of us on the Face book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk2W73D7eHQ

The spiritual Masters have worked very hard to create a world where one accepts the otherness of other; mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. Their notion of One Causer (or the big bang), One beginning, One Source of Creation, One creator, One God, One nation, One world, One community - was essentially to create a diverse but conflictless world.

Zarthustra, Confucius, Abraham, Krishna, Rama, Moses, Dao, Buddha, Mahavir, Jesus, Mohammad, Nanak, Bahaullah, Gandhi, MLK and many more in native African, American, Asian and other traditions brought that message to have a world of justice for every one of God’s creation. Together they served the whole humanity; the creator did not miss out any. Krishna in Bhagvad Gita says something to this effect “whenever the civilness in a society is lost, I will emerge and restore that balance..” and Allah in Qur’aan says “ to every nation, every community and every tribe, I have sent a messenger to teach harmony and co-existence; to learn about each other and to live in peace and harmony… and further adds; those who do good (taking care of others that surround them; life and environment) will earn the peace of mind and balance they deserve. You will find the same message in every tradition (due to space, I am just quoting the two traditions at this time - you are welcome to share your tradition in the comments below)

Face book is doing just what the spiritual master did; it has given the freedom to every member to express her/his thoughts, and share his or her uniqueness. You are free to be a friend and free to un-friend; and you are free to accept the otherness of other and be friends with. Some members on the Face book have over 5000 friends and some just 5, it is all about the time you have avaialble and are willing to be in a global movment of democractic pluralism.

However, the world we live in is composed of the good, bad and the ugly. 99% of the posting (Face book has to verify this) are about people and goodness, and less than 1% of the postings are about maligning others - and that is how many extremists in the world are; less than 1/10th of 1% of any grouping. It is ironic that those who label themselves with a religion, do the maligning. That is not being religious. Religion is about creating peace and balance for one and all.

Face book has a whole lot of freedom for the individual to express;
a majority of them get it right, some don’t,
It is not the face book
It is the individuals who abuse that freedom;

Cities regulate traffic laws for the safety of every citizen;
a majority of them get it, some don’t.
It is not the city,
it is the individual that violates the rules;

Religions teach one to gain one’s balance with the self and its surroundings;
a majority of them get it, some don’t;
It is not the religion,
it is the individual who goes to the extremes;

Criminal Laws of every community are built for the security of every citizen;
a majority of them get it, some don’t.
It is not the laws books,
it is the individual that commits the crimes;

Thank Goodness, 99-9/10th % of the humanity is made of good and caring people. That is not good enough, if you cannot speak out or stop some one from doing wrong. Let’s learn to speak up and let's be a contributor towards the goodness.

ABOUT THE FACE BOOK:

Getting away from the routines of life for a moment,
everyone ought to live in illusory Maya for a moment,

Face book has become a source of solace,
with no obligation and no pressure,
and we open the book, and then close it with ease.

Every one of us has a moment with each other's face;
it is one of the best things we have seen in years.

The Foundation for Pluralism (www.FoundationforPluralism.com) is committed to providing the media and world leaders with insights, and policy solutions to effectively managing the multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies. Dr. Abusaleh Shariff and Mike Ghouse are committed to developing solutions for pluralistic governance of diverse people.

In democratic politics, pluralism is a guiding principle which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. Unlike totalitarianism or particularism, pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it legitimate for members of society to work for their realization, to represent them and to articulate them in a process of conflict and dialogue. In political philosophy, those who embrace pluralism are often described as liberals, while those who take up a more critical attitude towards the diversity of modern societies are often called communitarians. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Memnosyne Foundation is committed to providing the mankind with the means to encourage positive, peaceful global collaboration in all areas of knowledge. MaryAnn Thompson-Frenk leads this organization with seven centers of learning. Mike Ghouse co-chairs the center for Interfaith inquiry, one of the seven centers of learning of Memnosyne Foundation.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, interfaith, Islam, India, Peace, political and civic issues. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed on his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net.

Israel and Iran Conflict

Here's how Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear program and hurt itself badly.
http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2009/05/israel-and-iran-conflict.html

The authors conclude "The time has come to adopt new ways of thinking. No more fiery declarations and empty threats, but rather a carefully weighed policy grounded in sound strategy. Ultimately, in an era of a multi-nuclear Middle East, all sides will have a clear interest to lower tension and not to increase it.”

It is a shame on humanity, that the Jews have not had the security for over two thousand years and continued to live under threats and fears. However, the responsibility for security transfers to the elected representatives of their nation; Israel.

The Jews did not have a place to call their own for over two millenniums, now that they have one, they have two major responsibilities to secure and sustain that security ;

1) they need to elect leaders who can work for it, where every Jew can live freely without fear, caution or guard and

2) they need to honor and willingly restore the same lost sentiment of home of the Palestinians. Justice for every human is the key for sustaining peace and real long term security.

Peace is your responsibility, mine and every one's responsibility who lives on this planet, you cannot be secure and at peace, when others around you are not.

The amount of money and hype geared by Israel and Iran with our collusion is pathetic. If they can spend tenths of that money and energy on mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill, they would do the right thing for their Citizens who elected them. Israel has all the power it needs, they can use it to destroy others and bring self destruction or use it to remove enemies by befriending them, arrogance of the power should be replaced with the humility, that brings goodness to the Israelis.

None in the world including the US has levied destruction on others without destroying ourselves. If the amount of funds blown in Afghanistan and Iraq were to have spent on investing in making their people's lives better we would have achieved security and peace and would have earned the friendship of the world and would have become a stronger nation.

Time for Israel and Jews to have discussions about seeking long term security for the Jewish Nation in terms of mitigating hostility and nurturing goodwill.

Mike Ghouse
# # #

Last update - 01:10 16/05/2009

Here's how Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear program
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085619.html

By Reuven Pedatzur

Israeli government ministers and Knesset members who will help make the decision about whether to attack Iran's nuclear facilities do not have to wait any longer for a preparatory briefing by the Israel Air Force.

They can read about all the possible scenarios for a strike on Iran, and about the potential risks and chances of success, in a study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Never before has such an open, detailed and thorough study of Israel's offensive options been published. The authors of the 114-page study meticulously gathered all available data on Israel's military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran's nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries' missile inventory.

Advertisement

After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: "A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible ... [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate."

The first problem the authors point to is intelligence, or more precisely, the lack of it. "It is not known whether Iran has some secret facilities where it is conducting uranium enrichment," they write. If facilities unknown to Western intelligence agencies do exist, Iran's uranium-enrichment program could continue to develop in secret there, while Israel attacks the known sites - and the strike's gains would thus be lost. In general, the authors state, attacking Iran is justified only if it will put an end to Iran's nuclear program or halt it for several years. That objective is very difficult to attain.

Intelligence agencies are also divided on the critical question of when Iran will deliver a nuclear weapon. Whereas Israeli intelligence maintains it will have the bomb between 2009 and 2012, the U.S. intelligence community estimates it will not happen before 2013. If the Israeli intelligence assessment is accurate, the window for a military strike is rapidly closing. It is clear to everyone that no one will dare attack Iran once it possesses nuclear weapons.

Since Iran has dozens of nuclear facilities dispersed throughout its large territory, and since it is impossible to attack all of them, Toukan and Cordesman investigated the option of hitting only three, which "constitute the core of the nuclear fuel cycle that Iran needs to produce nuclear weapons grade fissile material."

Destroying these three sites ought to stall the Iranian nuclear program for several years. The three are: the nuclear research center in Isfahan, the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz, and the heavy water plant, intended for future plutonium production, in Arak. It is doubtful whether Israel would embark on an offensive with such major ramifications just to strike a small number of facilities, when it is not at all clear that this will stop Iran's nuclearization for a significant length of time.

The study analyzes three possible flight routes and concludes that the optimal and most likely one is the northern one that passes along the Syria-Turkey border, cuts across the northeastern edge of Iraq and leads into Iran. The central route passes over Jordan and is shorter, but would not be chosen for fear of political trouble with the Jordanians. Using the southern route, which passes over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, might likewise lead to political entanglements.

To prevent the aircraft being detected en route to Iran, the IAF would use advanced technology to invade and scramble communication networks and radar devices in the countries over which the F-15s and F-16s fly, so even though dozens of planes would pass through the countries' airspace, they will not be detected. According to the authors, the IAF used this technology in the raid on the Syrian nuclear reactor in Dayr az-Zawr, in September 2007. A hacker system was installed on two Gulfstream G550 aircraft that the IAF bought in recent years.

A strike mission on the three nuclear facilities would require no fewer than 90 combat aircraft, including all 25 F-15Es in the IAF inventory and another 65 F-16I/Cs. On top of that, all the IAF's refueling planes will have to be airborne: 5 KC-130Hs and 4 B-707s. The combat aircraft will have to be refueled both en route to and on the way back from Iran. The IAF will have a hard time locating an area above which the tankers can cruise without being detected by the Syrians or the Turks.

One of the toughest operational problems to resolve is the fact that the facility at Natanz is buried deep underground. Part of it, the fuel-enrichment plant, reaches a depth of 8 meters, and is protected by a 2.5-meter-thick concrete wall, which is in turn protected by another concrete wall. By mid-2004 the Iranians had fortified their defense of the other part of the facility, where the centrifuges are housed. They buried it 25 meters underground and built a roof over it made of reinforced concrete several meters thick.

The Iranians use the centrifuges to enrich uranium, which is required in order to produce a nuclear bomb. There are already 6,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility; the Iranians plan to install a total of 50,000, which could be used to produce 500 kilos of weapons-grade uranium annually. Building a nuclear bomb takes 15-20 kilograms of enriched uranium. That means that the Natanz facility will be able to supply enough fissile material for 25-30 nuclear weapons per year.

Because the Natanz facility is so important, the Iranians have gone to great lengths to protect it. To contend with the serious defensive measures they have taken, the IAF will use two types of U.S.-made smart bombs. According to reports in the foreign media, 600 of these bombs - nicknamed "bunker busters" - have been sold to Israel. One is called GBU-27, it weighs about 900 kilos and it can penetrate a 2.4-meter layer of concrete. The other is called GBU-28 and weighs 2,268 kilos; this monster can penetrate 6 meters of concrete and another layer of earth 30 meters deep. But for these bombs to penetrate ultra-protected Iranian facilities, IAF pilots will have to strike the targets with absolute accuracy and at an optimal angle.

Additional challenges

But the challenges facing the IAF do not end there. Iran has built a dense aerial-defense system that will make it hard for Israeli planes to reach their targets unscathed. Among other things, the Iranians have deployed batteries of Hawk, SA-5 and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, plus they have SA-7, SA-15, Rapier, Crotale and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Furthermore, 1,700 anti-aircraft guns protect the nuclear facilities - not to mention the 158 combat aircraft that might take part in defending Iran's skies. Most of those planes are outdated, but they may be scrambled to intercept the IAF, which will thus have to use part of its strike force to deal with the situation.

However, all these obstacles are nothing compared to the S-300V (SA-12 Giant) anti-aircraft defense system, which various reports say Russia may have secretly supplied to Iran recently. If the Iranians indeed have this defense system, all of the IAF's calculations, and all of the considerations for and against a strike, will have to be overhauled. The Russian system is so sophisticated and tamper-proof that the aircraft attrition rates could reach 20-30 percent: In other words, out of a strike force of 90 aircraft, 20 to 25 would be downed. This, the authors say, is "a loss Israel would hardly accept in paying."

If Israel also decides to attack the famous reactor in Bushehr, an ecological disaster and mass deaths will result. The contamination released into the air in the form of radionuclides would spread over a large area, and thousands of Iranians who live nearby would be killed immediately; in addition, possibly hundreds of thousands would subsequently die of cancer. Because northerly winds blow in the area throughout most of the year, the authors conclude that, "most definitely Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides."

The difficulty involved in an IAF strike would become a moot point if ballistic missiles wind up being used instead of combat aircraft. The Iranians cannot defend against ballistic missiles. The study lays bare Israel's missile program and points to three missile versions it has developed: Jericho I, II and III. The Jericho I has a 500-kilometer range, a 450-kilogram warhead, and can carry a 20-kiloton nuclear weapon. Jericho II has a 1,500-kilometer range, and entered service in 1990. It can carry a 1-megaton nuclear warhead. Jericho III is an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 4,800-6,500 kilometers, and can carry a multi-megaton nuclear warhead. The study says the latter was expected to enter service in 2008.

The authors apparently do not insinuate that Israel will launch missiles carrying nuclear warheads, but rather conventional warheads. By their calculation it will take 42 Jericho III missiles to destroy the three Iranian facilities, assuming that they all hit their marks, which is extremely difficult. It is not enough to hit the target area: To destroy the facilities it is necessary to hit certain points of only a few meters in size. It is doubtful the Jerichos' accuracy can be relied on, and that all of them will hit those critical spots with precision.

The study also analyzes the possible Iranian response to an Israeli strike. In all likelihood the result would be to spur Iranians to continue and even accelerate their nuclear program, to create reliable deterrence in the face of an aggressive Israel. Iran would also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which until now has enabled its nuclear program to be monitored, to a certain degree, through inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. An Israeli strike would immediately put a stop to the international community's attempts to pressure Iran into suspending development of nuclear weapons.

No Syrian response

Iran would also, almost certainly, retaliate against Israel directly. It might attack targets here with Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, whose range covers all of Israel. A few might even be equipped with chemical warheads. In addition, the Iranians would use Hezbollah and Hamas to dispatch waves of suicide bombers into Israel. The Second Lebanon War showed us Hezbollah's rocket capability, and the experience of the past eight years has been instructive regarding Hamas' ability to fire Qassams from the Gaza Strip.

Hezbollah launched 4,000 rockets from South Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War, and their effect on northern Israel has not been forgotten: Life was nearly paralyzed for a whole month. Since then the Lebanese organization's stockpile was replenished and enhanced, and it now has some 40,000 rockets. Israel does not have a response to those rockets. The rocket defense systems now being developed (Iron Dome and Magic Wand) are still far from completion, and even after they become operational, it is doubtful they will prove effective against thousands of rockets launched at Israel.

An Israeli strike on Iran would also sow instability in the Middle East. The Iranians would make use of the Shi'ites in Iraq, support Taliban fighters and improve their combat capabilities in Afghanistan. They also might attack American interests in the region, especially in countries that host U.S. military forces, such as Qatar and Bahrain. The Iranians would probably also attempt to disrupt the flow of oil to the West from the Persian Gulf region. Since the United States would be perceived as having given Israel a green light to attack Iran, American relations with allies in the Arab world could suffer greatly. Toukan and Cordesman believe, however, that Iran's ally Syria would refrain from intervening if Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities.

Regarding a possible time frame for an Israeli strike, the authors cited factors that could speed up the decision in this matter. By 2010 Iran could pose a serious threat to its neighbors and Israel, because it would have enough nuclear weapons to deter the latter and the United States from attacking it. Iran's inventory of effective ballistic missiles capable of carrying nonconventional warheads could also be an incentive. The fear that the country will procure the Russian S-300V aerial-defense system (if it has not done so already) might also serve as an incentive for a preemptive strike.

So what should Israeli policy makers conclude from this American study? That an IAF strike on Iran would be complicated and problematic, and that the chance of it succeeding is not great. That they must weigh all of the far-reaching ramifications that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would have, and that they must not be fooled by promises, should any be made, by Israel Defense Forces officers who present the attack plan as having good odds for success.

One of the conclusions from Toukan and Cordesman's study is that it is questionable whether Israel has the military capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program, or even to delay it for several years. Therefore, if the diplomatic contacts the Obama administration is initiating with Iran prove useless, and if in the wake of their expected failure the American president does not decide to attack Iran, it is likely that Iran will possess nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. It seems, therefore, that policy makers in Jerusalem should begin preparing, mentally and operationally, for a situation in which Iran is a nuclear power with a strike capability against Israel.

This is the place to emphasize Israel's mistake in hyping the Iranian threat. The regime in Tehran is certainly a bitter and inflexible rival, but from there it's a long way to presenting it as a truly existential threat to Israel. Iran's involvement in terror in our region is troubling, but a distinction must be made between a willingness to bankroll terrorists, and an intention to launch nuclear missiles against Israel. Even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel's power of deterrence will suffice to dissuade any Iranian ruler from even contemplating launching nuclear weapons against it.

It is time to stop waving around the scarecrow of an existential threat and refrain from making belligerent statements, which sometimes create a dangerous dynamic of escalation. And if the statements are superfluous and harmful - then this is doubly true for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Of course, none of this contradicts the possibility of taking covert action to hamper the Iranians' program and supply routes. When the IAF destroyed the Osirak reactor in Baghdad in 1981, the "Begin doctrine" came into being, which holds that Israel will not let any hostile country in the region acquire nuclear weapons. The problem is that what could be accomplished in Iraq more than two decades ago is no longer possible today under the present circumstances in Iran.

The continual harping on the Iranian threat stems from domestic Israeli politics and a desire to increase investment in the security realm, but the ramifications of this are dangerous when you analyze expected developments in Iran's ballistics: It is impossible for Israel to ignore Iran's capacity to hit it, and Jerusalem must shape a policy that will neutralize that threat.

In another year, or three years from now, when the Iranians possess nuclear weapons, the rules of the strategic game in the region will be completely altered. Israel must reach that moment with a fully formulated and clear policy in hand, enabling it to successfully confront a potential nuclear threat, even when it is likely that the other side has no intention of carrying it out. The key, of course, is deterrence. Only a clear and credible signal to the Iranians, indicating the terrible price they will pay for attempting a nuclear strike against Israel, will prevent them from using their missiles. The Iranians have no logical reason to bring about the total destruction of their big cities, as could happen if Israel uses the means of deterrence at its disposal. Neither the satisfaction of killing Zionist infidels, nor, certainly, the promotion of Palestinian interests would justify that price. Israeli deterrence in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat has a good chance of succeeding precisely because the Iranians have no incentive to deal a mortal blow to Israel.

Therefore, all the declarations about developing the operational capability of IAF aircraft so they can attack the nuclear facilities in Iran, and the empty promises about the ability of the Arrow missile defense system to contend effectively with the Shahab-3, not only do not help bolster Israel's power of deterrence, but actually undermine the process of building it and making it credible in Iranian eyes.

The time has come to adopt new ways of thinking. No more fiery declarations and empty threats, but rather a carefully weighed policy grounded in sound strategy. Ultimately, in an era of a multi-nuclear Middle East, all sides will have a clear interest to lower tension and not to increase it.

That Jew - American Muslims Condemn Bigotry

AMERICAN MUSLIMS CONDEMN BIGOTRY

A Republican Senate challenger in Arkansas called Sen. Chuck Schumer "that Jew" at a campaign event and has spent a week backtracking, apologizing, and digging himself in deeper.

This kind of bigotry must be condemned. The senator needs to apologize and promise never to say anything like that ever again. Inclusion is the hallmark of civil societies and we need to let the world know we are a civilized people and a civilized nation. As American Muslims, we condemn this bigotry.

Continue: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/05/kim-hendren-calls-chuck-schumer-that.html

A Giant Leap for Pakistan

THAT'S ONE SMALL STEP FOR A CHILD, A GIANT LEAP FOR PAKISTAN.

Shehzad Roy Presents "Ek Shaam Zindagi Trust ke Naam"

Date: Saturday, May 9 at
Time: 7:00 PM - 9:30 PM
Place: Double Tree Hotel,
4099 Valley View Lane, Dallas, TX 75244
Tickets: FunAsia in Richardson
Online Tickets: http://zindagitrustdallas.eventbrite.com/
Call 214-529-5790 or 214-529-5790

Mike Ghouse

Dallas, Texas – April 22, 2009: Shehzad Roy, renowned Pakistani pop singer and philanthropist has taken the initiative to facilitate a change in Pakistan through education for every Pakistani child. “That’s one small step for a child; a giant leap for Pakistan" just as Neil Armstrong stepped on moon at 2:56 on July 21, 1969 and made that famous statement, “that's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind".

The world is not the same since then: we have witnessed the emergence of information technology and electronic communications changing the way we live today.

However, statistics show that millions of Pakistani children are deprived of the basic necessities of life and have to fend for themselves. They are forced to handle the responsibilities of adults before their minds and bodies mature, thus robbing them of their childhood. More than 50% of the population is illiterate and millions below the age of 15 are trapped in child labor to support their families.

Zindagi Trust was established by Shehzad Roy in March 2002 with the vision of providing quality education to the underprivileged-working children of Pakistan, thus consciously creating a civil society to live and let live. It is a non-profit 501 [c] 3 organization. Its purpose is to research and find solutions pertaining to Child Labor, Mother Child Health Care, and Women’s' /Girls' Education issues in Pakistan.

Shehzad Roy’s brainchild, Zindagi Trust, has started an innovative program to eliminate child labor in Pakistan. The “I am paid to learn” program takes working children off the streets and pays them to go to school. Since its inception, 34 schools are in operation with 5300 students supported. “Be my buddy” program was created to sponsor the educational expenses of an assigned Zindagi trust student. For those who want to serve on a larger altruistic level, they can Sponsor a School. Please visit the website www.Zindagitrust.org for details.

As Americans, we could become a catalyst for a positive change by laying foundations for great societies based on education, understanding and cooperation. Our investment in education would yield far greater results in a generation or two than the monies poured into short-term non-sustainable results. It is a change every one dreams about.

Please join Shehzad Roy by participating and supporting the change that you want to make happen for Pakistan.

Roy’s fundraiser will be held on May 9th at the DoubleTree Hotel Dallas (Galleria) at 7pm. Tickets are $75.00 per person and are available on-line at http://zindagitrustdallas.eventbrite.com/

For more information about the trust, or to make a donation, visit http://www/zindagitrust.org

Please call 214-529-5790 or 214-325-1916 for tickets, sponsorship or purchase of VIP Tables.

###

Short messages for websites and Radio:

Spot # 4

Hi, I am Shehzad Roy, Chairman of Zindagi Trust, and I am pleased to invite you to join me in learning about the innovative programs to remove illiteracy and child Labor from Pakistan. Our “I am paid to learn” takes working children off the streets and pays them to go to school. Since its inception, 34 schools are in operation with 5300 students supported. “Be my buddy” program was created to sponsor the educational expenses of an assigned Zindagi trust student. For those who want to serve on a larger altruistic level, they can Sponsor a School. Please visit the website www.Zindagitrust.org for details.

Shehzad Roy presents “Ek Shaam Zindagi Trust ke Naam” at 7:00 PM on Saturday, May 9th at Double Tree Hotel on LBJ at Midway. Oh yes, the pop Singer will perform as well. Tickets are available at the site www.Zindagitrust.org or you can call 214-529-5790 or 214-529-5790 or 214-325-1916 for sponsorship and VIP Tickets.

Please purchase your ticket from FunAsia, our exclusive Media partner in promoting this event. You can also call 214-529-5790 or 214-325-1916 for sponsorship and VIP Tickets.

Spot # 1

When Neil Armstrong stepped on moon on July 21, 1969 he made that famous statement. “That’s one small step for a man; a giant step for the mankind” Likewise, Shehzad Roy, renowned Pakistani pop singer and philanthropist has taken the initiative to facilitate a change in Pakistan through education for every Pakistani child. “That’s one small step for a child; a giant leap for Pakistan"

Shehzad Roy’s Zindagi Trust has started an innovative program to eliminate child labor in Pakistan. The “I am paid to learn” program takes working children off the streets and pays them to go to school.

Shehzad Roy presents “Ek Shaam Zindagi Trust ke Naam” at 7:00 PM on Saturday, May 9th at Double Tree Hotel on LBJ at Midway. Oh yes, the pop Singer will perform as well. Tickets are available at the site www.Zindagitrust.org or you can call 214-529-5790 or 214-529-5790 or 214-325-1916 for sponsorship and VIP Tickets.

Online purchase - http://zindagitrustdallas.eventbrite.com/

Spot # 2

Shehzad Roy’s brainchild, Zindagi Trust, has started an innovative program to eliminate child labor in Pakistan. The “I am paid to learn” program takes working children off the streets and pays them to go to school. Since its inception, 34 schools are in operation with 5300 students supported. “Be my buddy” program was created to sponsor the educational expenses of an assigned Zindagi trust student. For those who want to serve on a larger altruistic level, they can Sponsor a School. Please visit the website www.Zindagitrust.org for details.

Shehzad Roy presents “Ek Shaam Zindagi Trust ke Naam” at 7:00 PM on Saturday, May 9th at Double Tree Hotel on LBJ at Midway. Oh yes, the pop Singer will perform as well. Tickets are available at the site www.Zindagitrust.org or you can call 214-529-5790 or 214-529-5790 or 214-325-1916 for sponsorship and VIP Tickets.

Spot # 3

Shehzad Roy is breaking the cycle of child labor in Pakistan by opening urban schools in poor areas through the Zindagi Trust. Zindagi Trust is currently educating 2300 students and needs your support to continue making an impact in the lives of the underprivileged.

Hear more about his effort to eradicate illiteracy by attending the Fundraiser, Concert & Dinner on May 9th!

Shehzad Roy presents “Ek Shaam Zindagi Trust ke Naam” at 7:00 PM on Saturday, May 9th at Double Tree Hotel on LBJ at Midway. Oh yes, the pop Singer will perform as well. Tickets are available at the site www.Zindagitrust.org or you can call 214-529-5790 or 214-529-5790 or 214-325-1916 for sponsorship and VIP Tickets.

Mike Ghouse Honored by RCC

RELIGION COMMUNICATORS COUNCIL HONORS THREE DALLASITES.

Mike Ghouse accepts the recognition with humility.

Mike's 5 Minutes Speech at the event

I want to thank the Religion Communicators council and Ms. Slater in whose husband’s name this recognition was initiated in 1929. I appreciate my friends for their support; particularly I want to thank Bill and Norma Matthews, Mary Ann Thompson-Frenk and John Shore with their presence. And I am pleased to congratulate the other two individuals who are recognized today;
- Religion Communicator of the year goes to a church or a religious organization or a person in such an organization effectively communicating faith values. (This year's awardee is Larry James, Central Dallas Ministries)

- Communicator of the year is given to a secular/media organization or a person in such an organization that effectively communicates faith values. (This year's awardee is Mike Ghouse)

- Lifetime Communicator of the year is presented to a person whose lifetime career has effectively communicated faith values. (This year's awardee is John Lovelace) http://www.rcc-dfw.org/awards.html

Thank ya’ll again.
Living a Safe and Peaceful life is my responsibility, your responsibility and every one’s responsibility.

You cannot be safe as an individual or a nation when others around are not. It becomes our duty to consciously create better societies to live and let live.

Communication is the key for a successful relationship between family members, friends, associates, co-workers, and even an event like this. It is important to communicate the right message be it your business or world peace or religion.

So what is our role as religious communicators? I believe it is to mitigate the conflicts and nurture goodwill for peaceful co-existence of every one, indeed it is the un-stated purpose of religion, any religion; it is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill among different peoples and nations.

Life and matter is about balance; every thing that came out of the big bang theory or through intentional creation seeks its own balance. Everything be it matter or life, has a built-in mechanism to seeks its own balance.

When it comes to matter, there is something that keeps the planets circumambulating around the Sun, that there is something that keeps the stars hung in a place. There is something that keeps the earth have its own precise balance. They are all put on a trajectory, they don’t have to think or work for the balance. Do we have a precise word to describe that 'something', for the sake of convenience and for a greater acceptance, can we call that 'something' a God?

Unlike the matter, human life was not put on a trajectory; we were not put on a plan to circumambulate around something, or hung in one place. We were given the freedom to create our own balance. Whether we believe in God or not, we still seek that balance.

Friends, God loves his creation just as each one of us loves what we create, be it the food we cook, the clothes we wear, the paintings we paint or sculptures we sculpt.

It is the love of the creator that gave each one of us, each community, each nation and each tribe a “formula” to live in peace within ourselves and with what surround us. He, she or it communicated that formula through the spiritual masters in the form of scriptures like Torah, Bible, Quran, Bhagvad Gita, Avesta and other scriptures including the oral traditions. Please remember, God has reached to every one of us and has offered that formula – to seek a balance for ourselves and a balance for what surrounds us; life and the environment.

God is about love, kindness and justice.

Hate is one of the few sources of disrupting peace in a society and it is our duty to track down the source of such hate and work on mitigating it. We have an obligation to maintain a balance in the society for our own individual good.

In your solitude, it is you who personally feels the anxiety, apprehension, fears or the joys of life for the actions you take in your life. Your Pastor, Pundit, Rabbi, Imam or Clergy are not responsible for it, even if they were; it is you who has to live with yourselves, so finding the truth is your own responsibility.

Prophet Muhammad once said to his associates that if some one uploads you with words that will cause you to have ill-will, malice, hate, anger towards other beings, you have to investigate before you believe, you should do your best to live a regret free life, you should not hate or pre-judge negatively any one without finding the truth.

We lose that balance when we let hate mongers, hate sermons and hate lectures creep in our societies, much of it is product of insecure men and it breeds arrogance. Arrogance that my way of life is superior or my religion is the only way to heaven. Arrogance is the source of most of the conflicts and much of the evil.

I am a Muslim and Islam works for me, just as Christianity works for you, Judaism works for you, Hinduism or other faiths work for you. And further I am humbled to say that my religion is not superior to others, that claim would be a sheer arrogance. There is a beautiful chapter in Qur’aan about it. http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.html

As religious communicators we need to explore and communicate that God has not signed up a deal with any religion behind our back, he just cannot do that. Let’s honor every tradition and faith whether they believe in one, multiple or no God. The essence of the creator and causer of the universe does not change with our beliefs.

Let’s learn to accept the otherness of other and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

Thank you.

Pictures from the event are at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeghouse/sets/72157616859531207/show/

BIO OF MIKE GHOUSE

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer.

He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, interfaith, Islam, India, Multiculturism, Terrorism, Peace, Politics and Civic issues. He co-chairs the center for interfaith inquiry of the Memnosyne Foundation and presides the Foundation for Pluralism. He is the president of World Muslim Congress a think tank with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world and vice-Versa.

His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Web sites and Blogs listed at his personal web site http://www.mikeghouse.net/ . He has authored over 600 articles on Pluralism, interfaith, Islam, India and peace.

His life mission is to open people’s hearts and minds towards fellow beings by mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. He is a peace maker and an educator with two Master degrees and working on his doctorate in Psychology. He has two books on the horizon ; Basic Islam- everything you want to know about Islam and Pluralism, a text book on Pluralism 101. Mike is a Neighborhood Commissioner at the City of Carrollton, and a Board Member of Dallas Peace Center. He is an Ambassador for Peace for the Universal Peace Federation and a member of the International leadership council. He has initiated the annual events like the Annual Thanksgiving Celebrations in its 12th year, Unity Day USA in its 5th year, Holocaust and Genocides, event just finished its 2nd Annual event. Mike Ghouse Cricket Gold cup and several other initiatives were taken. He was Past President of Indian Creek HOA and North Texas Cricket Association and has been a member of several Boards.

Mike is a Dallasite for three decades and Carrollton is his home town.

Mike Ghouse Honored

Norvell Slater Annual Awards
Mike Ghouse receives the special award
http://www.rcc-dfw.org/awards.html

Dallas - Fort Worth Chapter
2009 Awards Luncheon will be held April 16, 2009
Honoring work done in 2008!

The Norvell Slater Communications Awards were established in 1996 in honor of the late Norvell Slater. Mr. Slater was an outstanding radio broadcaster whose career spanned 60+ years in the radio broadcast field. He was heard on the radio in the Dallas/Fort Worth area since the earliest days of broadcasting here. He was one the stars on the very popular Early Birds Radio program in the 1930s and 1940s and was responsible for several WFAA-TV programs in the beginning years of television broadcasting. For more than 40 of those years, he was host of the program "Hymns We Love," which featured a wide repertoire of hymns and religious music.

Mr. Slater was a charter member of the Dallas Chapter of the Religious Public Relations Council (now known as the Religion Communicators Council). He was an able communicator of the values of faith through his love of music and for the Church and was able to do this in both secular and religious media. The Norvell Slater Awards recognize individuals or organizations that follow his example of communicating faith values.

Norvell Slater's sister Estelle was a large part of her brother's ministry for many years. Pictured at right, with Chapter President Cherrie Graham, Estelle has been an honored guest at many of our luncheons.

Three Awards will be given for work done in 2008

Three Slater Awards are presented annually to honor outstanding achievement in communication of faith values through the media in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

- Religion Communicator of the year goes to a church or a religious organization or a person in such an organization effectively communicating faith values. (This year's awardee is Larry James, Central Dallas Ministries)

- Commercial Communicator of the year is given to a secular/commercial media organization or a person in such an organization that effectively communicates faith values. (This year's awardee is Mike Ghouse)

- Lifetime Communicator of the year is presented to a person whose lifetime career has effectively communicated faith values. (This year's awardee is John Lovelace)

The awards are presented at a luncheon in early spring for work done the previous year. A committee made up of chapter members chooses the awardees. Chapter members are encouraged to make nominations for any or all of the three categories

Can US Pressure Israel?

Can the United States put pressure on Israel?
http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2009/04/can-us-pressure-israel.html

The lobbyist, the Congressmen, the Senators and the past US Administrations have never considered what the people of Israel and Palestine really want?

They want peace; living their daily lives without apprehensions, fears and tensions. It is time to facilitate and work for those goals. The bullies like Bush and Netanyahu have consistently worked against those goals to please a few who applaud them as 'strong leaders'. Strong leaders my foot, their policies have done more destruction and killing than bring peace, they are truly anti-Israel along with those Senators, congressmen and the lobbyist.

The Native American Indians geared their actions with results to the 7th generation on their mind. If Netanyahu can think about the Israeli children 50 years from now, he will do the right thing; his sycophants need to think in those terms as well. I hope this man changes his attitude and adopts the goals of peace and do everything to achieve that.

The Americans have been duped with the policies in the past that believed in “annihilating and subjugating' others to have peace. It has not worked and will not work, we need to wake up and respect every one's space. We cannot have peace unless others have it too. We must learn to accept and respect individual's right to exist, rights for his identity, and rights for his space. We have to learn to co-exist for a sustainable peace for the children of Israel and Palestine for now and fifty years from now.

Justice and fairness for one and all will bring peace, durability and sustainability.

Thank you Hasni Essa for sharing the following Peace

Mike Ghouse
http://www.mikeghouse.net/
http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/
http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/

Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based writer, blogger, speaker and a thinker. A frequent guest on talk radio and local television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website.
# #

Can the United States put pressure on Israel?
A user's guide Fri, 04/10/2009 - 6:18pm

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have all publicly stated that the United States seeks a "two-state" solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, the United States supports the creation of a viable Palestinian state in virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza. The new Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu opposes this goal, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has already said that he does not think Israel is bound by its recent commitments on this issue.

To advance its own interests, therefore, the United States will have to pursue a more even-handed policy than it has in the past, and put strong pressure on both sides to come to an agreement. Instead of the current "special relationship" -- where the U.S. gives Israel generous and nearly-unconditional support -- the United States and Israel would have a more normal relationship, akin to U.S. relations with other democracies (where public criticism and overt pressure sometimes occurs). While still committed to Israel’s security, the United States would use the leverage at its disposal to make a two-state solution a reality.

This idea appears to be gaining ground. Several weeks ago, a bipartisan panel of distinguished foreign policy experts headed by Henry Siegman and Brent Scowcroft issued a thoughtful report calling for the Obama administration to “engage in prompt, sustained, and determined efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Success, they noted, "will require a careful blend of persuasion, inducement, reward, and pressure..." Last week, the Economist called for the United States to reduce its aid to Israel if the Netanyahu government continues to reject a two-state solution. The Boston Globe offered a similar view earlier this week, advising Obama to tell Netanyahu "to take the steps necessary for peace or risk compromising Israel's special relationship with America." A few days ago, Ha’aretz reported that the Obama Administration was preparing Congressional leaders for a possible confrontation with the Netanyahu government.

These developments got me thinking: what might a more even-handed posture look like in practice? We already know what it means for the United States to put pressure on the Palestinians, because Washington has done that repeatedly -- and sometimes effectively -- over the past several decades. During the 1970s, for example, the United States supported King Hussein’s violent crackdown on the PLO cadres who were threatening his rule in Jordan. During the 1980s, the United States refused to recognize the PLO until it accepted Israel’s right to exist. After the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the Bush administration refused to deal with Yasser Arafat and pushed hard for his replacement. After Arafat's death, we insisted on democratic elections for a new Palestinian assembly and then rejected the results when Hamas won. The United States has also gone after charitable organizations with ties to Hamas and backed Israel’s recent campaign in Gaza. In short, the United States has rarely hesitated to use its leverage to try to shape Palestinian behavior, even if some of these efforts -- such as the inept attempt to foment a Fatah coup against Hamas in 2007 -- have backfired.


But what about pressure on Israel? The United States has only rarely put (mild) pressure on Israel in recent decades (and never for very long), even when the Israeli government was engaged in actions (such as building settlements) that the U.S. government opposed. The question is: if the Netanyahu/Lieberman government remains intransigent, what should Obama do? Are there usable sources of leverage that the United States could employ to nudge Israel away from the vision of “Greater Israel” and towards a genuine two-state solution? Here are a few ideas.

1. Cut the aid package? If you add it all up, Israel gets over $3 billion in U.S. economic and military aid each year, which works out to about $500 per Israeli citizen. There’s a lot of potential leverage here, but it’s probably not the best stick to use, at least not at first. Trying to trim or cut the aid package will trigger an open and undoubtedly ugly confrontation in Congress (where the influence of AIPAC and other hard-line groups in the Israel lobby is greatest). So that’s not where I’d start. Instead, I’d consider a few other options, such as:

2. Change the Rhetoric. The Obama administration could begin by using different language to describe certain Israeli policies. While reaffirming America’s commitment to Israel’s existence as a Jewish-majority state, it could stop referring to settlement construction as “unhelpful,” a word that makes U.S. diplomats sound timid and mealy-mouthed. Instead, we could start describing the settlements as “illegal” or as “violations of international law.” The UN Charter forbids acquisition of territory by force and the Fourth Geneva Convention bars states from transfering their populations (even if voluntarily) to areas under belligerent occupation. This is why earlier U.S. administrations described the settlements as illegal, and why the rest of the world has long regarded them in the same way. U.S. officials could even describe Israel’s occupation as “contrary to democracy,” “unwise,” “cruel,” or “unjust.” Altering the rhetoric would send a clear signal to the Israeli government and its citizens that their government’s opposition to a two-state solution was jeopardizing the special relationship.


3. Support a U.N. Resolution Condemning the Occupation. Since 1972, the United States has vetoed forty-three U.N. Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel (a number greater than the sum of all vetoes cast by the other permanent members). If the Obama administration wanted to send a clear signal that it was unhappy with Israel’s actions, it could sponsor a resolution condemning the occupation and calling for a two-state solution. Taking an active role in drafting such a measure would also ensure that it said exactly what we wanted, and avoided criticisms that we didn’t want included. 4. Downgrade existing arrangements for “strategic cooperation.” There are now a number of institutionalized arrangements for security cooperation between the Pentagon and the Israel Defense Forces and between U.S. and Israeli intelligence. The Obama administration could postpone or suspend some of these meetings, or start sending lower-grade representatives to them. There is in fact a precedent for this step: after negotiating the original agreements for a “strategic partnership,” the Reagan administration suspended them following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Today, such a step would surely get the attention of Israel’s security establishment.

5. Reduce U.S. purchases of Israeli military equipment. In addition to providing Israel with military assistance (some of which is then used to purchase U.S. arms), the Pentagon also buys millions of dollars of weaponry and other services from Israel’s own defense industry. Obama could instruct Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to slow or decrease these purchases, which would send an unmistakable signal that it was no longer "business-as-usual." Given the battering Israel’s economy has taken in the current global recession, this step would get noticed too.

6. Get tough with private organizations that support settlement activity. As David Ignatius recently noted in the Washington Post, many private donations to charitable organizations operating in Israel are tax-deductible in the United States, including private donations that support settlement activity. This makes no sense: it means the American taxpayer is indirectly subsidizing activities that are contrary to stated U.S. policy and that actually threaten Israel’s long-term future. Just as the United States has gone after charitable contributions flowing to terrorist organizations, the U.S. Treasury could crack down on charitable organizations (including those of some prominent Christian Zionists) that are supporting these illegal activities.

7. Place more limits on U.S. loan guarantees. The United States has provided billions of dollars of loan guarantees to Israel on several occasions, which enabled Israel to borrow money from commercial banks at lower interest rates. Back in 1992, the first Bush administration held up nearly $10 billion in guarantees until Israel agreed to halt settlement construction and attend the Madrid peace conference, and the dispute helped undermine the hard-line Likud government of Yitzhak Shamir and bring Yitzhak Rabin to power, which in turn made the historic Oslo Agreement possible.

8. Encourage other U.S. allies to use their influence too. In the past, the United States has often pressed other states to upgrade their own ties with Israel. If pressure is needed, however, the United States could try a different tack. For example, we could quietly encourage the EU not to upgrade its relations with Israel until it had agreed to end the occupation.


I don’t think Obama needs to employ all of these steps --and certainly not all at once -- but the United States clearly has plenty of options if pressure turns out to be necessary. And most of these measures could be implemented by the Executive Branch alone, thereby outflanking die-hard defenders of the special relationship in Congress. Indeed, even hinting that it was thinking about some of these measures would probably get Netanyahu to start reconsidering his position.

Most importantly, Obama and his aides will need to reach out to Israel’s supporters in the United States, and make it clear to them that pressing Israel to end the occupation is essential for Israel’s long-term survival. He will have to work with the more far-sighted elements in the pro-Israel community -- including groups like J Street, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and others -- and make it perfectly clear that his administration is not selling Israel down the river. And yes, we are also going to have to keep pressing Hamas to moderate its positions and push the Palestinian authority to create more effective governing institutions.

The key point to grasp is that using U.S. leverage on both sides--and not just one--is not an “anti-Israel” policy, if that is what it will take to make the two-state solution a reality. It is in fact the best thing we could do for ourselves and for Israel itself. In effect, the United States would be giving Israel a choice: it can end its self-defeating occupation of Palestinian lands, actively work for a two-state solution, and thereby remain a cherished American ally. Or it can continue to expand the occupation and face a progressive loss of American support as well as the costly and corrupting burden of ruling millions of Palestinians by force.

Indeed, that is why many—though of course not all--Israelis would probably welcome a more active and evenhanded U.S. role. It was former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who said "if the two-state solution collapses, Israel will face a South-Africa style struggle for political rights." And once that happens, he warned, “the state of Israel is finished." The editor of Ha’aretz, David Landau, conveyed much the same sentiment last September when he told former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States should "rape" Israel in order to force a solution. Landau's phrase was shocking and offensive, but it underscored the sense of urgency felt within some segments of the Israeli body politic.

Indeed, I suspect it would not take much U.S. pressure to produce the necessary shift in Israel’s attitudes. As the recent bipartisan statement notes, "most Israelis understand and appreciate that, at the end of the day, what really matters most for Israel's security is a relationship of trust, confidence, and friendship with the U.S." If the United States believes that a two-state solution is the best option, then it will have to convey that this “trust, confidence, and friendship” can be retained if Israel changes course, but cannot be taken for granted.

A combination of a change in
by Brett on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 6:37pm

A combination of a change in rhetoric and a hold-up in the loan guarantees seems like a good idea - that way, the Israelis and their supporters here couldn't really make the argument that the US was undermining Israel's national security directly.

It's rather risky, though. The first Bush Presidency took a blow for doing the hold-up on the loans, and he had to go kiss-ass to a number of Jewish pro-Israeli groups.
Login or register to post comments

How about pressuring our Arab
by AllanGreen on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 6:31am
How about pressuring our Arab SOBs and the EU to stop funding the PA, and cut all ties to Hamas, and Hezbollah? If you want peace, that's what needs to be done. If you pressure Israel, you'll just undermine the peace process.
Login or register to post comments

think we can pressure
by David in DC on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 9:50am
I think we can pressure Israel to stop the growth of the settlement footprint. This is opposed to population growth within existing settlements, an issue I think people blow all out of proportion.

As for a two state solution, I think it is pretty clear that it won't come any time soon. I agree with Netanyahu that the best course for now is to improve the lives of the Palestinians while preparing both populations for the eventuality of a two state solution. This would mean preparing Israelis to cede some of Jerusalem, which strikes me as the biggest sticking point on their side, and preparing Palestinians to cede an absolute "right of return", the biggest sticking point on theirs, for one more symbolic - a right of return to the Palestinian homeland. Both sides would have to stop all incitement sponsored by the government and in the media.

IMO the biggest challenge to overcome is the fact that the government in Gaza puts the goal of eradicating Israel over the well-being of their population. This leads to 1) a never ending stream of incitement and hatred, and 2) a situation where they can steer events in a way which causes Israel to take measures to defend itself, which then harms the Gazans, further alienating the Palestinian (and wider Arab and Muslim) populations.

For instance, it would be good for Gazans if the borders were fully open. But as sure as night follows day, if this were the case Hamas would be importing heavier and more advanced weaponry. They would use it against Israel to the point where Israel would have no choice but to act (imagine Hamas rockets being able to reach the nuclear reactor at Dimona, or Tel Aviv, or Hamas getting 'lucky' and killing 50 kids in a school). Then we are back to another invasion with a thousand+ dead or more. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It would be nice to hear some suggestions about what to do more sophisticated than 'we should talk to them' or 'we should bomb them back to the stone age'. I don't think either prescription by itself will work. I am not opposed to talking to Hamas, but what should we do if they respond in a way consistent with their public stances and charter? Talk more? Isolate them again? What?
Should they be pressured to modify their charter and public statements? If so, what kind of pressure?

If Obama tries to pressure
by J Thomas on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 8:03pm
If Obama tries to pressure israel, israel will pressure Obama with their lobby.
So the primary battlefield here is in US public opinion. The US government should perhaps create some documentaries describing various events from israeli history.
The 1956 war, say, where israel invaded egypt intending to take and hold sinai with no particular justification except to help britain and france in their attempt to grab the suez canal, and Eisenhower made them give it back.

Perhaps host a TV documentary on the USS Liberty. What was it doing? What is the evidence that israel intended to sink it? Release various classified information....
Maybe one about the Pollard case.

And one about the US involvement in lebanon under Reagan that got so many US soldiers killed. The official reasons to do that don't make sense and there were various claims that the US military was used to pressure israel not to kill too many PLO guys. When the PLO left for tunisia our navy was specifically ordered to shoot down israeli planes or ships that tried to interfere.... There were publicised incidents of US and israeli soldiers having "shoving matches" while carrying out their nations' respective policies, and there is some evidence of the israeli army shelling US positions. There might be classified records of what actually happened; the US government could reveal them.

The extremist elements of the israeli lobby believe that israel is in a state of permanent war and that reduced US support for israel is an existential threat. They will consider any threat of reduced support as an act of war, they will not fight "fair". They must be defeated or else appeased; there is no third choice.
Without a strong attempt by the US government to influence US public opinion, the israeli lobby would inevitably win.
Login or register to post comments
What's Wrong With This Picture
by Zathras on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 8:10pm

I can commend points 2 and 6 here strongly, and a few of the others with some reservations. The program as a whole, though, won't work politically.

The reason is that the Arabs will undermine it. Arab rhetoric -- unfortunately not just the rhetoric of Palestinian factions -- will continue to present Israel's existence rather than the Jewish state's policies as the problem. The rhetoric will reflect genuine Arab public opinion, but will not be a wholly accurate representation of the policies of Arab governments and will not signify a genuine existential threat to Israel.

The problem is one familiar to anyone who has followed this issue as it is discussed in American politics. Americans will assume that Arab rhetoric is meant to be taken literally. They will of course be encouraged to think this by the Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States, but Americans as a whole tend to be fairly literal about language anyway. The enormous and largely intentional gap between Arab rhetoric and the policies of Arab governments (let alone Palestinian factions) won't track with the American public or their representatives in Congress -- and the idea of a more "evenhanded" American policy toward the Middle East will fall, because the American public will never be indifferent as between Israel and those it thinks are committed to Israel's destruction.

What's wrong with this big picture, in other words, is the big picture. Changes in the American approach to the Israeli-Palestinian quarrel need to be focused tightly on specific issues, not on how friendly America should be to Israel as opposed to Israel's enemies. The specific issue central to a two-state solution is obviously the one involving Jewish settlements on the West Bank. What's wrong with the settlements is that they serve no American interest and undermine the American policy of pursuing Mideast peace through the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Addressing the issue in these terms would be difficult enough -- political support for Israeli government policy in the United States (or at least in Washington) contains a strong reflexive element, and the settlement question is not widely understood by the public. It certainly isn't widely understood in the context of its relation to American foreign policy objectives, because no recent American administration has ever discussed settlements in this way. Tackling the settlement question directly would generate a firestorm of protest for the Obama administration. I believe, however, that this firestorm is one the administration could withstand, if it is disciplined about addressing the settlement question exclusively as a matter of pursuing American interests, not letting those be subordinated to the internal politics of a foreign country however friendly, and absolutely not presenting its policy in terms of a decision to become less close to the Israelis and more friendly to the unpredictable and unattractive Palestinian leadership and Arab governments.

Incidentally, the idea of bypassing Congressional supporters of Israel with executive orders and Pentagon procurement decisions is just foolish unless one is talking about very temporary steps intended to influence an individual negotiation. Congress has too many ways to require the executive branch to do what Congress wants it to do, and many of these can have the effect of encumbering foreign policy permanently, not just reversing an individual decision.