Rice rebukes Israel for divisive building plans

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tells USA TODAY reporters Tuesday that she admonished Israel's plans to expand a settlement in East Jerusalem, where most of the city's Arabs live.

"The Israeli action "undermines confidence" needed to revive dormant peace talks, she said at an hour-long session with USA TODAY reporters and editors. She issued an "admonition" that both sides had an "obligation to be very careful about activities that undermine confidence.""

Rice warns Israel against East J'lem construction

"On Friday, Rice warned Israel that the construction plan threatened U.S.-backed efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians."

Rice criticises Israel's settlement expansion plan

"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticised Friday an Israeli decision to expand a Jewish settlement in east Jerusalem. Referring to last week's Annapolis Middle East peace conference, Rice told a press conference in Brussels, "I made it clear that we are in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence with the parties. "This is not going to build that confidence.""

Rice won't respond directly to Ahmadinejad

"I am not going to comment on that comment except to say that what the National Intelligence Estimate shows, and the transparency with which the administration released it, is what it means to live in a democracy and I hope one day that the people of Iran will live in a democracy too," she said.

There's political spin and then there's neo-conic mombo-jumbo. This is neo-conic mombo-jumbo at it's best. Condi actually said this with a straight face ~ like Bush and the gang have been absolutely "transparent" with the American people. This NIE is actually a rebellion by the intelligence community. They are simply putting the powers that be on notice that this time around they will not be the fall-guys for the mis-adventures of Bush and the Zio-cons.

Rice in diplomatic flurry ahead of Mideast talks

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Sunday as part of last-ditch efforts to bridge differences with the Palestinians ahead of key Middle East peace talks."

Eyes Will Be on Bush At Talks on Mideast

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joins President Bush in his meeting at the White House with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Photo Credit: By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press

"When the Middle East peace conference kicks off Tuesday in Annapolis, President Bush will deliver the opening speech and also conduct three rounds of personal diplomacy with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Such an active role is notable for a president who has never visited Israel while in office, who has made only one trip to Egypt and Jordan to promote peace efforts, and who has left the task of relaunching the peace process largely in the hands of his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice."

Look Who's Downplaying Iran's Nuclear Threat

"Imagine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telling a group of leading U.S. policymakers that Iran's nuclear weapons program does not pose a direct threat to U.S. security, or former CIA Director George Tenet making the same kind of argument in a public forum. Imagine also that their views are reported in front-page news stories in the Washington Post and the New York Times."

Looks like reason and sanity are fianlly starting to prevail. The Neocons must be in an all-out uproar.

The Tunnel at the End of the Light

by Leon Hadar - Nov 7, 2007

The recently published memoir of the late Arthur Schlesinger, the renowned American historian and former aide to U.S. presidents, recalls that whenever officials in Washington had pointed to signs of progress toward peace in the Middle East, Israeli diplomat Abba Eban would caution them that when it comes to that part of the world, one should be reminded that "There is a tunnel at the end of the light."

At a time when U.S. President George W. Bush and his top foreign policy aides are celebrating recent developments in the Middle East, from Israel/Palestine to Mesopotamia – the U.S.-sponsored summit in Annapolis, Md., scheduled for November; the drop in the number of casualties in Iraq; the continuing diplomatic pressure on Iran to end its nuclear program – as signs that the American diplomatic train is pressing toward the light at the end of the Middle East tunnel, Eban's advice can be helpful in deconstructing the spin of the administration.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been shuttling between Middle Eastern capitals in recent weeks, trying to set up another peace conference aimed at reaching a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, has stressed that she will tire "until I have given my last ounce of energy and my last moment in office" to working for the so-called "two-state solution" – the creation of an independent Palestinian state that would live in peace with Israel.

Like so much of the foreign policy rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration, Rice's comments sound admirable but ring hollow. Many Arabs and Israelis are skeptical that the summit will help achieve any concrete results and suspect that it will end up as yet another meaningless photo opportunity.

While U.S. officials insist that they are preparing the groundwork for getting the two sides to sign an agreement, the reality is that neither Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas nor Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has the backing of the majority of their people or the political will to embrace compromises on the core existential issues that separate Israelis and Palestinians – the fate of Jerusalem and the Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Olmert rules over a fragile coalition; Abbas does not even govern the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by the Hamas movement. At the same time, it is not clear whether Saudi Arabia, which has promoted its own Arab peace plan, and Syria, which wants to hold talks with Israel over the occupied Golan Heights, will attend the conference.

Hence it is not surprising that the concern is that the Annapolis Summit, by raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled – ending with nothing more than long-winded communiqués – will only produce frustration among the Palestinians, re-igniting the Intifada against Israel and more anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

That is exactly what happened after the 2000 Camp David summit failed to deliver a peace agreement. The Israel-Palestine deadlock and the continuing stalemate on the Israel-Syria front, coupled with American efforts to isolate the regime in Damascus, could create the conditions for new military tensions in the Levant, especially if the Lebanese-Shi'ite Hezbollah guerillas, wo are backed by Iran and maintain ties to Syria, decide to join the fighting.

That could certainly happen if and when the United States and Iran head toward a military confrontation, following a possible decision by the United States and/or Israel to strike suspected Iranian nuclear military installations.

Most experts calculate that there is a probability of about 60 percent that such a scenario will take place before President Bush and Vice Pesident Dick Cheney leave office in 2008. While Rice continues to express optimism that the recent economic sanctions against Iran will force Tehran to renounce its nuclear military program, that sounds – very much like the hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement – like more wishful thinking.

Rising oil prices, together with Iran's financial and trade ties with China, Russia, and other countries, allow the Iranians to overcome the effects of the U.S.-led economic sanctions.

If anything, U.S. policies in the Middle East, including the occupation of Iraq, which helped bring to power a Shi'ite government in Baghdad while increasing anti-American sentiment in the region, have played into the hands of the more radical elements in Iran's leadership. They, no doubt, will use an American attack on Iran as an opportunity to mobilize support for their cause in Iran and in other Muslim countries.

The conventional wisdom is that the Bush administration is aware of the potentially high economic and military costs of a confrontation with Iran, including massive increase in energy prices, and of the opposition in the U.S. military and Congress to direct, unilateral action against the Iranians.

Hence even a limited "surgical" strike by the Americans and/or the Israelis could bring about Iranian retaliation that could take the form of unleashing Hezbollah forces in Lebanon against Israel and encouraging Iran's allies in Iraq – which include the majority of the Shi'ite religious and political leaders and their militias – to attack U.S. forces in that country.

Indeed, the fact that the Bush administration's "allies" in Iraq are actually longtime partners of the Iranians – Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spent more than 20 years in exile in revolutionary Iran – demonstrates the fragility of America's political and military control of Iraq.

U.S. diplomatic and military leaders have attributed the decline in the number of American casualties in Iraq to cooperation with Sunni militias and tribes that are willing to work with the Americans on an ad-hoc basis against al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgent groups backed by foreign players.

But this American partnership with some Sunni groups has helped create anti-American sentiment among members of the Shi'ite militias, who fear resurgent Sunni power.

At the same time, the Americans are also being drawn into the competition and fighting among the growing number of Shi'ite militias, with their different political agendas and outside allegiances – all of which highlights the kaleidoscopic nature of Iraqi politics, where never-ending shifts in the alliances and commitments of this sect or that group make it difficult for any outside power to maintain control of the country.

Indeed, the current crisis in the U.S.-Turkey relationship over Ankara's threat to deploy its military forces into the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq, as part of its pursuit of anti-Turkish terrorists belonging to the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), exposes in a very dramatic way the dilemma facing the United States as it tries to establish its hegemony in Iraq and the wider Middle East.

In a region exploding with historical national, ethnic, and religious rivalries (Israelis versus Palestinians, Persian versus Arabs, Sunnis versus Shi'ites, Kurds versus Turks/Iranians/Arabs), where authoritarian regimes face powerful domestic opposition (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria) while others exhibit the symptoms of failed states (Iraq, Lebanon), America does not have either the power or the will to impose its preferred solution.

Instead, the United States can buy time with some temporary arrangements – say, limited Turkish military incursions into the Kurdish area – until the next crisis – say, Turkish opposition to Kurdish control of Mosul. Which explains why as the Americans get closer to what seemed to be a light at the end of the tunnel, they discover that they are entering a new and darker tunnel.

Israel tells Rice security comes before Palestinian state

AFP - Nov 4, 2007

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heard a strong message from Israel on Sunday that security must precede the creation of a Palestinian state, as she sought to bridge gaps ahead of a peace meeting.

Making her eighth visit this year for shuttle diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinians, Rice lowered expectations of rapid agreement on a joint document for the US-sponsored meeting expected later this year in Annapolis, Maryland.

"I think what you are really starting to see here is that people are starting to see Annapolis as the beginning of a process, not a single point in time," Rice told a group of journalists travelling with her.

"People are starting to address really difficult issues that they had not addressed in a long time," she added.

Israeli officials have said that negotiations should be based on a 2003 peace blueprint endorsed by the international community, insisting that Israeli security come before the creation of a Palestinian state.

"The roadmap should be the guiding principle for any further progress between Israel and the Palestinians," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Rice during their meeting, according to a senior Israeli official.

The internationally drafted peace plan has made next to no progress since it was adopted more than four year ago, and has already missed its first deadline for creating a Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure Israel.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have pushed for a more ambitious document that addresses the most hotly contested issues of the conflict -- Jerusalem, borders, and refugees -- and sets a timetable for implementation.

"The negotiations are going to be difficult and challenging, but we have the desire and we have hope, and we are confident we will arrive at a good result," Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said on Sunday in a speech in Ramallah.

Israeli negotiators and their Palestinian counterparts have been divided for weeks over a joint document they are supposed to draw up for the meeting aimed at reviving the peace process after a seven-year hiatus.

Not a single word has yet been written for the conference document and wide gaps remain between Israel and the Palestinians, although both sides have agreed that commitment to the roadmap would be part of the statement.

Rice met Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak, and international Middle East envoy Tony Blair before she was to address the Saban Forum think-tank in Jerusalem.

On Monday, she is to meet Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, Ahmed Qorei who heads his negotiating team and prime minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank political capital of Ramallah.

The Palestinians have asked that Rice put more pressure on Israel, insisting that Israeli security will only come with a larger political settlement.

"The statements of some Israeli officials that consider Israeli security more important than the establishment of a Palestinian state hinder an agreement," Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP.

"The establishment of a Palestinian state is what will guarantee the security and stability of the whole region," he added.

Abbas has called for a six-month deadline for a comprehensive deal with Israel, insisting: "We will not accept leaving these questions open for ever."

No firm date has yet been announced for the US meeting, and Arab powers likely to be invited to the conference have been sceptical about its chances of success without any serious effort to address the concerns of all involved.

The Islamist movement Hamas, which has ruled the Gaza Strip since a bloody takeover in which security forces loyal to Abbas were defeated nearly five months ago, has rejected the conference altogether.

"Its well-known goals are normalisation with the Arabs, the hardening of internal divisions and the preparation for the coming attack on Iran and Gaza and Syria and Lebanon," Hamas leader Ismail Haniya said on Sunday.

"It is a preparation to impose the roadmap, which means the disarmament of the resistance," he added.

Israeli air strikes and shelling killed four Palestinians in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip on Sunday, after militants fired three rockets toward the Jewish state, medical and security officials said.

Yet More Condi Rice Diplomacy

by Gordon Prather - Oct 27, 2007

In announcing her latest "steps" in the Bush-Cheney campaign to effect regime change in Iran, Condi Rice claimed they were necessary because Iran had again rejected the offer originally made "on our behalf" back in May, 2006, by Javier Solana – the European Union Minister of Foreign Affairs – "to support a civil nuclear program in Iran under international supervision if it agreed to give up pursuit of the fuel cycle."

Some offer! It is undeniably true that Iran – as a member of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency and a signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – has an "inalienable right" to pursue the nuclear fuel cycle.

So, when Iran rejected Rice's ultimatum to give up its "inalienable rights," her stooge Bonkers Bolton managed to ram through UN Security Council Resolution 1696, which began – if you can believe it – by

"Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination." Nevertheless, UNSCR 1696 went on to "demand" that Iran "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development" by August 31, 2006.

Or else!

Iran's reaction?

Here are excerpts from the rebuttal of Iran's UN representative – Javad Zarif – in the aftermath of the Council's passage of Resolution 1696:

"This is not the first time that Iran's endeavors to stand on its own feet and make technological advances have faced the stiff resistance and concerted pressure of some powers permanently represented in the Security Council."

In particular, as a result of intense pressure by President Clinton, Russia cancelled its contract to provide Iran a turn-key gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment plant and China cancelled its contract to provide Iran a turn-key uranium-conversion plant.

"Iran's peaceful nuclear program poses no threat to international peace and security, and therefore dealing with this issue in the Security Council is unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility.

"Far from reflecting – as advertised – the concerns of the international community, the approach of the sponsors flouts the stated position of the overwhelming majority of the international community, clearly reflected in the most recent statements by Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement and of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), and partly reflected in the June, 2006, IAEA Board Chairman's Conclusion.

"The Non-Aligned Movement, comprising an overwhelming majority of this [UN] Organization, in the recent statement of its Ministers in Putrajaya ‘stressed that there should be no undue pressure or interference in the Agency's activities, especially its verification process, which would jeopardize the efficiency and credibility of the Agency', and ‘nothing should be interpreted in a way as inhibiting or restricting this right of States to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes' and ‘reaffirmed that States' choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and its fuel cycle policies must be respected."

Well, that was last year. The Russians and Chinese have since refused to go any further down Condi's "diplomatic" path to effecting regime change in Iran.

Worse, it appears that Condi's previous diplomatic triumph has come unglued.

Two years ago, Condi whizzed down to New Delhi to prevent India from finalizing technical and commercial contracts for a $4.5 billion natural gas pipeline – the so-called "Peace Pipeline" – that would transit Pakistan but provide Iranian natural gas mostly to India.

Well that would never do. So, Condi proposed, as a mutually exclusive alternative, a U.S.-Indian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.

But, there were substantial obstacles that had to be overcome for the agreement to be approved.

When India tested a "nuclear explosive device" in 1974, our Congress passed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, requiring any future recipient of US nuclear exports to submit to "full scope" IAEA Safeguards. Nuclear exports to any recipient state which subsequently detonated a "nuclear explosive device" were to be terminated.

Furthermore, the US took the lead in establishing the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 40-plus member voluntary organization which includes the U.S., UK, Russia, China and France.

Currently, if any new NSG transfers are required by NSG Guidelines to be made subject to IAEA Safeguards, NSG guidelines now require all existing nuclear equipment at all facilities in the country be made subject.

That would mean that India would have to subject its nuclear weapons and related facilities to IAEA safeguards.

So the first step had been to get our Congress to approve the US-India deal – in principle -- which would involve changes in both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and the Atomic Energy Act.

Congress made actually making those legislative changes contingent upon India negotiating IAEA safeguards agreement on all "civilian" nuclear programs and then getting the NSG to exempt India from the requirement of making all nuclear programs subject to IAEA safeguards.
So the process is for India to [1] declare its "civilian" materials, facilities, and activities, [2] negotiate IAEA safeguards agreements for them, [3] get an NSG exemption for its nuclear weapons material, facilities and activities, and then [4] get approval by the Indian Congress of the deal.

Then and only then would our Congress make the necessary changes in U.S. law.

Last week Indian Prime Minister Singh reportedly told President Bush that it didn't look like the present coalition government would approve the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, largely because of its "strategic" implications.

Meanwhile, it appears technical and commercial contracts for the Iran-Pakistan-India "peace-pipeline" are being "finalized."

So, Condi has "diplomatically" corrupted the IAEA Board of Governors, emasculated the Nuclear Suppliers Group and defenestrated the NPT, and to what end?

Well, nevermind, Condi. Just plunge ahead. Because,

"the Iranian Government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations – threatening to wipe Israel off the map."

So "determine" that the Iranian Republican Guards have engaged in certain activities, and that certain Iranian banks had been involved in transactions, that materially contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Then have Secretary of the Treasury Paulson "block" the US assets of the lot of them.

Why?

Apparently so President Bush can – pursuant to Presidential Directive 12938, as amended – threaten to seize all the U.S. assets of any foreign company that provides (or attempts to provide) those nuke proliferators financial, material, technological support.

Rice looks to history for peace effort

Rice is really trying to figure a new way the US and Israel can "screw" the Palestinians. She's checking the historical records to make sure previous unsuccessful attempts to force Israel biased "peace" deals down the Palestinian's throats are not duplicated. Clearly, Rice, the intellectual, has figured out by now that Israel really doesn't want peace and knows that the US can't/won't force peace on them.

by MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press - Oct 27, 2007

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is looking to the past for lessons on how to make next month's Mideast peace conference a success.

As she prepares to host the international meeting in Annapolis, Md., Rice has delved into the history of U.S. attempts to mediate peace in the region, plunging into the diplomatic annals and seeking out the major players responsible for both successes and failures.

"She's trying to draw on the historical record and the experiences of others to see what she can glean and how that may be applicable to the current day," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday, ahead of Rice's Nov. 4-6 trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, her second in three weeks to organize the Annapolis gathering.

Most recently, she met this week with Jimmy Carter, sitting down in her office on Wednesday for a talk with the former president who brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt, the first between the Jewish state and an Arab nation.

Carter has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Middle East polices and wrote a recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," that some believe is anti-Israeli. McCormack said the differences in approach were not a subject of her conversation.

Rice has also spoken by phone with former President Clinton about his work on the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace deal. She discussed with both Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright the unsuccessful 2000 attempt in Shepherdstown, W.Va., to mediate an Israeli-Syrian agreement and their bid later that year at Camp David to forge an Israeli-Palestinian pact.

Others she has reached out to include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and James Baker, and to one-time U.S. peace negotiators like Dennis Ross, who played a key role in the Clinton administration and the administration of former President George H.W. Bush.

In addition, Rice, whose background is in Soviet studies, asked the State Department historian's office to prepare a voluminous, and classified, compendium of its records on the U.S. role in Middle East peacemaking.

McCormack declined to offer details of her private readings and conversations or discuss any conclusions she may have drawn from them. But he noted that Rice, especially given her background as an academic, has intense interest in studying past diplomacy for clues about what might work as the Annapolis meeting approaches.

"We view the situation as qualitatively different than it has been, the history moves on, people change roles, situations," McCormack said.

"That said, you can take the lessons of history and apply them," he said. "She is a student of history and has a keen appreciation for how we can apply the lessons of history, what we can learn from those who have gone before us."

Rice faces serious obstacles in organizing Annapolis, with both Israel and the Palestinians far apart on a joint statement to be presented to the meeting that she and President Bush hope will launch the start of formal peace talks.

The two sides have fundamental differences over how detailed the document must be and whether it should contain a timeline for progress in the eventual negotiations.

The Israelis want the statement to be as vague as possible while the Palestinians are pushing for deadlines and specific references to the key issues in the conflict, among them the borders of a Palestinian state, the status of disputed Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Rice's last trip to the region, a furious four-day shuttle diplomacy mission earlier this month, produced little apparent progress on bringing the two sides together.

However, she did win at least public support for the Annapolis conference from Egypt and Jordan, two critical Arab allies of the United States that had both expressed skepticism about the utility of the meeting.

Rice: Mideast peace in jeopardy

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is seated on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 24

And it's all because of Hamas, No wait! Iran, No, I mean..., Mr.Olmert Sir - Who was I suppose to blame this time?

by ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press - Oct 14, 2007
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that a "two-state solution" in the Middle East was in jeopardy and described a narrow window of opportunity to push Israel and the Palestinians toward peace.

In a House hearing interrupted by anti-war protesters, Rice said an upcoming peace conference in Annapolis, Md., is needed to give hope to moderate Palestinian forces. She blamed Iran for fanning flames in the region, including what she called "troubling" new support for Hamas militants.

"Our concern is growing that without a serious political prospect for the Palestinians that gives to moderate leaders a horizon that they can show to their people that indeed there is a two-state solution that is possible, we will lose the window for a two-state solution," Rice said.

Rice's testimony was punctuated by Iraq war protesters. As Rice entered the hearing room, one woman rushed toward her and waved her hands — painted blood red — in front of the secretary's face. The protester shouted that Rice was a "war criminal" and should be taken to The Hague, home of an international war crimes tribunal.

Rice was stoic and continued with her business as the protester was removed. Others were likewise escorted away at the behest of Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Despite the protesters' effort to focus on the war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran dominated the hearing. Lantos, D-Calif., asked whether the Bush administration was doing enough to pressure Egypt to crack down on Hamas sympathizers and whether Bush was calling for the peace conference to salvage his political legacy.

Rice dismissed suggestions that the conference was a political ploy.

"There are probably easier foreign policy tasks to take on than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," she said. "The timing comes down to what it is we need to do to give moderate forces in the region a boost and to deal a blow to forces of extremism."

The conference has not been scheduled, but should occur by year's end, she said.

She said the administration will ask Congress for more money to support the Palestinian government. She did not disclose the amount.

Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told parliament that the conference would mark the beginning of the end of his country's conflict with the Palestinians.

"I don't know if the time of peace is yet ripe," Olmert said in Jerusalem. "But I know that it is my duty as the prime minister Israel to do everything in order to promote that time and at least try and bring it closer."

On a separate issue, Rice said a State Department review found serious problems with the way private security guards operate in Iraq and that the U.S. may need to change its policies on contractors.

Rice said she and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have told their deputies to study the situation further. Rice already has ordered rule changes so Washington has more oversight of security contractors.

In discussing Iran, Rice said the administration shares Congress' goal of imposing tougher penalties. But, she said, a multilateral approach is necessary and she urged lawmakers to work with the administration.

Last month, the House passed, by a 397-16 vote, legislation aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill, sponsored by Lantos, would bar the president from waiving U.S. penalties.

She was asked whether the administration is considering a military strike in Iran and if Vice President Dick Cheney was leading the charge. The U.S., she said, is committed to diplomacy but will not rule out any option.

"Frankly, the international community has to get a lot tougher if it's going to get resolved diplomatically," she said. "The Iranians are not a state, I don't think, that will change their behavior just through talking to them."

The top U.S. diplomat also said Iran's ties to Hamas were disturbing. "To see Iranian actual penetration now of these more radical elements of the Palestinian terrorist groups is really quite troubling," she said.

On other issues, Rice:

* said the Iraqis are taking steps to crack down on rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party who fighting the Turks. The U.S. has told Turkey that retaliatory attacks would have a "destabilizing effect," she said.

* cited delicate relations with Turkey as she urged lawmakers against moving ahead with a nonbinding resolution that would label as genocide the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks a century ago. "This is something that was a horrible event, in the mass killings that took place, but at the time of the Ottoman Empire. These are not the Ottomans," she said of Turkey's current leaders.

* said the U.S. embassy in Iraq will be completed within budget, at a cost of $592 million, and that construction delays were being addressed. She declined to estimate when it would be finished.

US secretary of state seeks to impose Israeli diktats on Palestinians

by Chris Marsden - Oct 22, 2007

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was busy “lowering expectations” after her five-day tour of the Middle East. In truth, Israel had its expectations fully realised, and, amongst the Palestinians, only the Abbas regime would have entertained any other outcome.

Last week’s tour was to promote and prepare for President Bush’s planned Middle East summit in Maryland late November. By the end of the week, Rice was denying that the summit had been postponed until December, because no invitations had been sent yet.

Even before negotiations began, Haaretz reported sources “in the [Israeli] Prime Minister’s Bureau” stating that Rice had no intention of imposing on Israel “anything that will not be acceptable to it.” She gave virtually every assurance demanded by the coalition government of Ehud Olmert, including the Likud-led opposition’s insistence that there would be no talk of “dividing Jerusalem.”

Rice made clear that Palestinian demands for a document addressing future borders, Israel’s West Bank wall, Palestinian prisoners, refugees and Jerusalem on a set timeline would be denied in favour of the general statement insisted on by Israel. “We’re at the beginning of a process,” she told reporters in Jerusalem. Following talks with Olmert on October 14, she said that it was very unlikely that there will be any “breakthroughs” on Jerusalem.

In contrast, she virtually instructed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to sign up to whatever was on offer and “to make every possible effort to ensure the success” of the Maryland conference. “We frankly have better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op,” she told reporters.

Abbas was left floundering, having been exposed once more as a Western dupe. He was forced to warn that the Palestinians would not attend the conference without there being a “clear document and deadline to reach a definitive result.”

Such an open rift with Washington is unlikely. What is certain is that, should a peace conference be convened, Abbas and other Arab leaders would attend only in order to attempt to impose a rotten compromise on an increasingly restive Palestinian population. To this end, they are making every effort to dress up the US in the garb of an honest broker. Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul-Gheit said at a joint press conference with Rice, “This American administration is saying that it is serious about achieving the mission, and I cannot doubt what they are telling me. I have to believe them.”

Abbas’s key advisers were clear about the implications of failure.

Palestinian Information and Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki warned that, “without a document to resolve this conflict, we can’t go to the conference next month.”

Ahmed Qurei, the former prime minister appointed as chief Palestinian negotiator, said that “If the talks fail, we can expect a third and much more severe intifada.”

Saeb Erekat, Abbas’s longtime adviser, said that the fate of the entire Middle East was in the balance. “So this region either goes in the direction of peace, moderation, democracy, stability or it goes in the direction of extremism, violence, counter-violence and deterioration. If we fail, God help us. I think the consequences will be much bigger than Palestinians and Israelis.”

In any event, the failure feared by the PA seems inevitable. Rice made no actual demands on the Israelis, contrary to the media’s efforts to emphasise whatever disagreements there were between the US and Israel. Indeed the only controversy that arose during her visit was provoked by comments made by Barak and his right-wing coalition partner, the Minister of Strategic Affairs, Avigdor Liebermann of Yisrael Beitenu.

On Monday, the prime minister had indicated his support for proposals, made by Lieberman and others within his Kadima party, to relinquish control of so-called “fringe neighbourhoods” in East Jerusalem. “Was it necessary to include Shuafat refugee camp, Arab al-Suwahara and Walajeh as part of Jerusalem? I admit, there are some legitimate questions to be asked about that,” Olmert said.

Olmert’s motivation was to help ensure the Jewish domination of Jerusalem by relinquishing control of neighbourhoods that are home to 170,000 Palestinians. As Lieberman stated bluntly later that week, “There is no reason for us to finance refugee camps like Shoafat, and they should be transferred to Palestinian control.”

Nevertheless, opposition Likud officials almost immediately urged both the religious party Shas and Yisrael Beitenu to quit the government over Olmert’s “declared intention” to divide Jerusalem. Somewhat bizarrely, given Liebermann’s position, both parties duly threatened to do so.

On Wednesday, President Shimon Peres denied that the government has any intention of dividing Jerusalem. This did not stop a petition being signed by more than half of the 120 Knesset members, including at least 15 members of Olmert’s Kadima and several Cabinet ministers. Kadima Minister Shaul Mofaz told Israel Radio that Jerusalem is not negotiable. Under Israeli law, any territorial concession on Jerusalem must be approved by an absolute majority of parliamentarians.

For his part, Olmert used the issue to his advantage, asking Rice to stop pressuring Israel given the “stiff opposition” he faced within his own government and in the Knesset. He even arranged meetings between Rice and Lieberman and Eli Yeshai of Shas, who warned her that the government would collapse if “core” final-status issues were discussed in the Annapolis conference. Yishai subsequently told Haaretz that if the division of Jerusalem is even mentioned at Annapolis, Shas will leave the government coalition.

The dispute involving jurisdiction over a few Palestinian neighbourhoods all but drowned out the actual statements made by Peres on Jerusalem—that the city’s holy sites must remain under Israeli sovereignty and that the capital must remain united, with a strong Jewish majority and security for its inhabitants.

To assert Jewish control over Temple Mount, the site of the Al Aqsa mosque, would of itself make an agreement almost impossible. This is understood by Israel. A decision to renew excavations to prepare the construction of a new bridge between the Western Wall and the Temple Mount was postponed immediately prior to Rice’s visit only after warnings that it could spark riots and exacerbate tensions immediately prior to the Annapolis summit. It was decided that this was too obvious a provocation. (More likely is that Israel might act on its threat to carry out a major military incursion against Hamas in Gaza.)

The efforts to secure permanent Jewish control of Temple Mount and other religious sites are one aspect of Israel’s plan to permanently annexe not only the whole of Jerusalem, but vast swathes of the West Bank.

The PA is formally calling for sovereignty over all the lands occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In a television interview, Abbas said, “We have 6,205 square kilometres in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We want it as it is.”

However, Abbas, Qurei and the leadership of Fatah have made clear that they are amenable to a “land swap” of some 2 percent of the West Bank. They are particularly keen to do a deal with Israel that they hope would undermine their rival Hamas, which presently has total control of Gaza. Even so, not even they could easily sign up to the actual settlement Israel is going about establishing—by creating “facts on the ground”—for fear of also losing political control of the West Bank.

On September 24, Israeli General Gadi Sh’mani signed an order to confiscate 1,100 dunnum (275 acres) of land in the E1 area of the Maale Edumim Jewish settlement. The confiscation affects the Palestinian villages of Abu Dis, Arab a Sawakh’reh, Nebi Musa and Talkhan al Khamar. Also affected is the Palestinian town of Eizarrya, where one local resident said, “Eizarrya will collapse completely, Eizarrya will die. With one wall and another wall, everything is going to be like a prison.”

The justification for this latest action is the building of a road to be used by Palestinians. But this is only in order to legitimise banning Palestinians from travelling on the present road network linking Jerusalem to Maale Adumim, which is to be expanded by 3,500 dwelling units. This would definitively end all territorial continuity of the Palestinian suburbs of Jerusalem, at a stroke rendering impossible the ostensible plan for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem that is at least nominally endorsed by the US “Road Map.”

The Associated Press reported that Israel is seeking some 6 to 8 percent of the West Bank, according to Palestinian negotiating documents in its possession. This makes clear that Israel intends to maintain control of all its major West Bank settlements, home to 250,000 Israelis. In exchange for the West Bank land, Olmert is considering transferring to the Palestinians a strip of land between the Gaza Strip and West Bank, which are divided by around 40 kilometres of Israeli territory.

However, Olmert also insists that the exact amount of territory he is demanding should be decided in future negotiations. Talk of 6 to 8 percent of the West Bank does not include East Jerusalem, where an additional 250,000 Israelis have moved in as settlers. This represents an additional 9.5 percent of Palestinian land, and their proposed capital.

In addition Israel’s so-called Security Wall, which already consolidates the seizure of much West Bank land, was originally intended to permanently separate the Jordan Valley from the rest of the West Bank and make it permanently Israel’s “eastern border.” The plan was temporarily shelved due to international objections to the Security Wall’s route, but Israel still controls most of the strip except for a small part around the town of Jericho and imposes harsh restrictions on Palestinians. Its permanent annexation would bring the West Bank land controlled by Israel to well over 40 percent and leave the Palestinians in a number of divided cantons, deprived of productive land and totally dependent on Israel for power, water and employment.

Israel has also insisted that any “provisional state” will be “fully demilitarised” and that it will continue to control all borders and air space. On her flight from Israel to London to meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who has signed up to attend the Maryland conference, Rice indicated that the US is ready to accede to these demands as well. She told reporters that she sympathised with Israel’s fears of the threat posed by any withdrawal from the territories.

“If, in fact, they’re going to be asked to withdraw from the West Bank at some point, what does that mean for the security of Israel? That’s a fair question. It really is,” she said. “They [Israel] had the withdrawal from Lebanon and it brought instability in Lebanon. They had the withdrawal from the Gaza, and look what happened in Gaza.”

Rice sees no breakthrough in talks

Okay, strike the tents and call it a day - cancel the conference and blame the Palestinians as usual

by MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press - Oct 14, 2007

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played down expectations for breakthroughs as she opened a critical round of Mideast shuttle diplomacy Sunday and warned Israel against moves that might erode confidence in the process.

As she flew into the region from Russia, Rice said she hoped to help narrow gaps between the Israelis and Palestinians, who are trying to forge an outline of an eventual peace deal in a joint statement to be presented at a U.S.-hosted international conference next month.

But even before her meetings began, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert antagonized the Palestinians by hinting that such an outline wasn't necessary for the conference to go ahead. The Palestinians said that without such a document, they would skip the meeting altogether.

The U.S. has been trying to revive peace efforts since the Islamic militant group Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in June. While the Gaza takeover has left Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas controlling just the West Bank, his expulsion of Hamas from government has, in U.S. eyes, freed the moderate leader to pursue a peace deal that would create a Palestinian state.

Rice said she did not believe her visit would produce the joint Israel-Palestinian statement or bring it to a point where invitations for the conference, expected to held in Annapolis, Md., in late November, could be issued.

"I don't expect out of these meetings that there will be any particular outcome in the sense of breakthroughs on the document," she told reporters aboard her plane.

At the same time, she said she would urge Israel in particular not to do anything that could threaten the meeting, following its renewal of a road plan that Palestinians fear is intended to tighten Israeli control over strategic West Bank areas near Jerusalem.

Rice said Israeli clarifications that the project was not imminent and meant to ease Palestinian movement did little to ease concerns.

"We have to be very careful as we are trying to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state of actions and statements that erode confidence in the parties' commitment to a two-state solution," she said.

"Even if the intentions are good and even if the actual events on the ground are intended to produce a certain kind of outcome, this is a very delicate time," Rice said. "It's just a time to be extremely careful."

Rice said she would shuttle between Israel and the West Bank over the next three days to "help them narrow differences that they may have about what the nature of this document has to be."

Speaking to his Cabinet Sunday, Olmert suggested a major difference existed when he hinted Israel did not see a peace deal outline as a crucial element of the meeting.

The goal, Olmert said, "is to arrive at a joint statement during the international conference, even though the existence of such a statement was never a condition for holding this conference," he said.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said the Palestinians would not allow Olmert to use the conference as a public relations stunt.

"Without a document to resolve this conflict, we can't go to the conference next month," he said.

"Olmert is looking for a public relations conference and one that will allow normalization with Arab countries," he said. "We will not help him in this."

To build Arab support for the conference, Rice will also make a stop in Egypt on Tuesday and cap her trip in London on Thursday to see King Abdullah of Jordan who will be in the British capital. A planned stop in Amman, Jordan, was canceled because the monarch would not be there.

A key measure of the success of the conference will be how far the sides move beforehand toward resolving key areas of dispute, like final borders, sovereignty over disputed Jerusalem and a solution for Palestinian refugees.

So far, the two sides are at odds over how detailed that peace deal framework should be, and both say no written agreement has been forged on any of these issues.

Israel is pressing for a vaguely worded document that would give it more room to maneuver. The Palestinians, by contrast, want a detailed preliminary agreement with a timetable for creating a Palestinian state.

Rice said she would be looking for "clarity on where the parties see themselves in the negotiations on their bilateral statement" that she said should at least touch on the key "final status" issues.

"I do think it's important that they address the core issues in some fashion," she said. "I also think it's important that the document be substantive enough that it points that there is a way forward toward the establishment of a Palestinian state."

Rice, on her third visit to the region since the Hamas takeover in Gaza, would not rule out presenting suggestions for the two sides to consider but refused to say what those might be.

In recent days, Palestinian officials have said an agreement is nearer than ever, and that swapping Israeli territory for West Bank land could solve the contentious issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Olmert has said the time has come to stop letting excuses get in the way of peacemaking, and a top ally has been publicly discussing a subject that was long taboo — sharing sovereignty in Jerusalem.

Still, the road project and the two sides' disagreements on the refugee issue are clouding prospects for success.

Rice lowers Mideast talks' expectations

by MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press - Oct 14, 2007

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played down expectations for breakthroughs as she opened a critical round of Mideast shuttle diplomacy here Sunday and warned Israel against moves that might erode confidence in the process.

As she flew into the region from Russia, Rice said she hoped to help narrow gaps between the Israelis and Palestinians, who are trying to forge an outline of an eventual peace deal in a joint statement to be presented at a U.S.-hosted international conference next month.

But she said she did not believe her visit would produce that statement or bring it to a point where invitations for the conference, expected to held in Annapolis, Md., in late November, could be issued.

"I don't expect out of these meetings that there will be any particular outcome in the sense of breakthroughs on the document," she told reporters aboard her plane.

"I would just warn in advance not to expect that because this is really a work in progress," she said.

"Even if the intentions are good and even if the actual events on the ground are intended to produce a certain kind of outcome, this is a very delicate time," Rice said. "It's just a time to be extremely careful."

Rice will shuttle between Israel and the West Bank over the next three days to, she said, "help them narrow differences that they may have about what the nature of this document has to be."

To build Arab support for the conference, she will also make a stop in Egypt on Tuesday and cap her trip in London on Thursday to see King Abdullah of Jordan who will be in the British capital. A planned stop in Amman, Jordan, was canceled because the monarch would not be there.

A key measure of the success of the conference will be how far the sides move beforehand toward resolving key areas of dispute, like final borders, sovereignty over disputed Jerusalem and a solution for Palestinians who lost their homes in the war that followed Israel's 1948 creation.

So far, the two sides are at odds over how detailed that peace deal framework should be, and both say no written agreement has been forged on any of these issues.

Israel is pressing for a vaguely worded document that would give it more room to maneuver. The Palestinians, by contrast, want a detailed preliminary agreement with a timetable for creating a Palestinian state.

Rice said she would be looking for "clarity on where the parties see themselves in the negotiations on their bilateral statement" that she said should at least touch on the key "final status" issues.

"I do think it's important that they address the core issues in some fashion," she said. "I also think it's important that the document be substantive enough that it points that there is a way forward toward the establishment of a Palestinian state."

But she added: "Obviously, as one would expect at this point in time, there are issues and differences to bridge in the nature of the document."

Rice, who is on her third visit to the region since Islamic Hamas militants violently took over the Gaza Strip in mid-June, would not rule out presenting suggestions for the two sides to consider but refused to say what those might be.

In recent days, Palestinian officials have said an agreement is nearer than ever, and that land swaps could solve the thorny issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said the time has come to stop letting excuses get in the way of peacemaking, and a top ally has been publicly discussing a subject that was long taboo — sharing sovereignty in Jerusalem.

Still, the road project and the two sides' disagreements on the refugee issue, a major reason for the collapse of the last round of peace talks in 2001, are clouding prospects for success.

Yet while Hamas' Gaza takeover has left Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas controlling just the West Bank, his expulsion of Hamas from government has in U.S. eyes, freed the moderate leader to pursue a peace deal that would create a Palestinian state.

Rice says Iran 'lying' about nukes

Proof? What proof? We don't need no stinking proof - Israel says Iran is lying - that's all the proof we need!

by MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press - Oct 11, 2007

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program, saying there's no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the U.N.'s atomic watchdog about its intentions.

"There is an Iranian history of obfuscation and, indeed, lying to the IAEA," she said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"There is a history of Iran not answering important questions about what is going on and there is Iran pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to nuclear weapons-grade material," Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she headed to Moscow.

U.S. officials have long accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons behind the facade of a civil atomic energy program, charges that Tehran denies. But Rice's strong words, including the blunt reference to Iranian "lying," come at a critical time in dealing with the matter.

The United States is trying to win Russian support for new U.N. sanctions against Iran but has faced sharp resistance from Moscow, which has nuclear cooperation agreements with Tehran and argues the country should be given more time to come clean on its programs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week there is no proof Tehran is trying to build the bomb. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are scheduled to see him in Moscow on Friday.

Washington has been pressing for more sanctions since earlier this year.

But last month, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Britain, China, France the United States and Russia — and Germany agreed with the support of the European Union to hold off on a new sanctions resolution until November to allow negotiations with Iran to continue.

If no progress is made on two separate tracks — talks with E.U. foreign policy chief Javier Solana on an offer of assistance in exchange for a suspension in Iran's nuclear program and discussions with IAEA on its past activities — they are to bring the resolution to a vote.

It remains unclear, though, if Russia and China, which also opposes sanctions, will support it.

Even as work on the proposed resolution is to continue at an Oct. 17 meeting of senior diplomats in Europe, Putin said Wednesday that Russia was not convinced Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons.

His comments came after talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose government is firmly behind the U.S. sanctions drive, and appeared to deal a new blow to efforts to forge a consensus.

"We have no objective data that Iran is seeking to make atomic weapons," Putin said. "Therefore, we proceed from the assumption that Iran has no such plans."

Rice, however, stressed that Russia had signed on to the Sept. 28 agreement to consider new sanctions in November and said she did not "expect that there is any deviation from that course at this point" from the Russian side.

She also noted that Russia had in the past demonstrated its concern about Iran's program by limiting its cooperation to prevent Tehran from acquiring a full nuclear fuel cycle that could be used to produce weapons-grade material.

"That concern was seen very clearly in Russia's offer to Iran to enrich and reprocess in a joint venture and to bring back any spent fuel so that the fuel cycle wouldn't be available to Iran," she said. "I think there is a reason for that and that is suspicion about Iran's intentions."

Bush Officials May Face New Subpoenas

by Nathan Guttman - August 3, 2007

High-profile Bush administration officials could be called to the witness stand if two deposed pro-Israel lobbyists have their way in a court case that is moving toward a January 2008 trial date.

Lawyers for two former lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have asked federal judge T.S. Ellis III to subpoena the highest-ranking foreign policy players in the administration, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Hadley’s deputy, Elliott Abrams, and other top officials from the White House, State Department and Pentagon.

The two Aipac lobbyists, Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen, are on trial for allegedly receiving classified information from government officials and relaying it to diplomats, journalists and other Aipac staff members. Their attorneys are seeking testimony from Rice and others in order to make the case that passing on classified information to lobbyists was routine conduct in Washington. The prosecution filed a series of motions asking that all subpoenas for government officials be dismissed.

If the subpoenas are approved by the court, the Aipac trial has the potential of turning into a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, which has made fighting leaks in the government one of its policy cornerstones. Having the most senior members of the administration testify under oath about conversations with lobbyists in regard to classified information could shatter what is left from the anti-leak posture the administration has adopted in its early years.

Last Tuesday, the judge moved closer to setting a trial date, securing January 14 — three-and-a-half years after the case first broke out — as the target for beginning the jury trial.

“We’ve got to get this done,” said Ellis in the hearing, while prodding the prosecution to speed up procedures. “This case has languished for quite a long time.”

Currently, the case’s closed-door discussions have reviewed the classified information that will be put forward. After that is completed, the proposed list of witnesses is expected to take center stage in the pretrial hearings.

The list contains some 30 witnesses, few of them directly involved in specific events mentioned in the indictment. Such is the subpoena requested for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. When Rice was national security adviser during the first term of the Bush administration, she held a White House meeting with Aipac’s executive director, Howard Kohr, and with Rosen, who was then the lobby’s policy director. During the meeting, Rice allegedly revealed information that was later conveyed to Rosen and Weissman by former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, who already has admitted to passing on classified information as part of a plea agreement with the prosecution.

The purpose of having the government officials testify, defense sources said, is to prove to the jury that leaking classified information to Aipac members, as well as to other lobbyists, journalists and diplomats, was not only standard procedure but also a pattern of behavior directed from the highest ranks in the administration.“We want to show it was authorized from the top,” a defense source said.

In addition to members of the State Department and Pentagon, the list may include current senior staff members of Aipac, though defense sources would not confirm that they are actually on the final list.

Due to the nature of the case, which centers on the use and proliferation of classified information, the court is required to approve each of the witnesses, and the topics about which he or she will be asked, in order to ensure that classified information is not revealed during the testimonies.

The government prosecution has filed motions arguing that the subpoenas are not relevant to the case. But Ellis has given some indication that he sees things otherwise. During one of the closed-door hearings, Ellis said that testimonies dealing with the nature of the relationship between Aipac and America’s government are “flatly relevant to this case,” since it is important for determining the defendants’ state of mind when they encountered classified information.

It is already clear that court will not allow the entire witness list presented by the prosecution, since Ellis is attempting to keep the trial short and not all the officials requested are relevant to Aipac issues.

Meanwhile, as the trial date was postponed yet again, the legal bills of the defendants have reached a record high. According to unofficial estimates within the defense team, both defendants have already incurred $7 million in legal fees a figure that might grow to $10 million by the time the case is over, making this trial one of the costliest in American history.

An agreement reached several months ago between Aipac and lawyers for Weissman ensures that the lobby will cover Weissman’s legal costs. A similar agreement is still being negotiated between Aipac and Rosen’s lawyers.

Source: Forward.com