Israel Articles - News from Israel and Middle East

Syrian Reactions to Initial Contacts with Obama Administration: The U.S. has Capitulated to Syria and Iran; The Resistance, Not Obama, has Changed the World

Since the beginning of the Obama administration there have been contacts between the U.S. and Syria, including a handshake between the two countries' foreign ministers at the March 2, 2009Sharm Al-Sheikh conference, [1] visits by several Congressional delegations to Syria, and a meeting between Syrian Ambassador to Washington 'Imad Mustafa and U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman. [2]

At the outset of the dialogue, both sides expressed cautious optimism regarding its chances of success. In an interview for the UAE daily Al-Khaleej, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said that despite the Obama administration's apparent good intentions, Syria was still waiting to hear clear and precise details about the new U.S. policy. [3] In an interview with the British Gaurdian, Assad said, "We have the impression that this administration will be different, and we have seen the signals. But we have to wait for the reality and the results." [4]

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, stated that it was too early to talk about "the ice melting" between Damascus and Washington, [5] and her deputy assistant, Jeffrey Feltman, said after his February 15, 2009 meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem that the U.S. had not yet reached understandings with Syria about all of the outstanding issues. [6] A more optimistic message was conveyed by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman following their meeting with President Assad. Kerry stated that despite the disagreements, there is a chance for genuine cooperation between the two countries on various issues, while Berman expressed hope that the U.S. and Syria would turn over a new leaf in their relations. He added that the policy of isolating Syriahad proved to be ineffective, and that there is need for dialogue with it.
Continue

On March 12, 2009, Iraq's Supreme Criminal Court sentenced Iraqi journalist Muntazar Al-Zaidi to three years in prison for throwing his shoes at then-U.S. president George Bush during a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, which took place in Baghdad on December 14, 2008. During the sentencing, dozens of protesters demonstrated outside the courtroom, demanding Al-Zaidi's release. [1]

Since Al-Zaidi's shoe attack on Bush, shoe-throwing has become a symbol of protest: In demonstrations across Europe, hundreds of protesters threw shoes at U.S. embassies to protest U.S. policies, while others brandished shoes to protest against the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Al-Zaidi's act also inspired several shoe attacks on figures around the world. On February 2, 2009, a shoe was thrown at Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, as he was giving a speech at Cambridge University in the U.K.; [2] Israeli Ambassador to Sweden Benny Dagan had a shoe thrown at him during a speech at Stockholm University; [3] and on March 5, 2009, an Iranian citizen threw a shoe at the vehicle of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a visit to the city of Urmia in western Iran. [4]

The Bush shoe-throwing incident triggered a flood of excited reactions in the Arab media. The Iraqi authorities condemned the incident and arrested Al-Zaidi, an employee of the Iraqi satellite television channel Al-Baghdadiyya. The general public, however, empathized with Al-Zaidi, condoned his act, and viewed him as a hero. This popular support was manifested, inter alia, by numerous demonstrations, during which participants demanded Al-Zaidi's release and voiced concern for his wellbeing in detention, as well as by the willingness of numerous lawyers to take part in defending him. The incident received extensive media coverage, including reports, analyses, poems, and cartoons.
Continue

Since the Arab oil embargo on the United States in 1973, political campaigns in the United States at all levels, and particularly at the presidential level, have called for a national oil policy that would reduce the dependency on Middle East oil.

While reducing the dependency on oil imports from anywhere should be a high national priority, much of the rhetoric about dependency on oil imports from the Middle East by the U.S. bear little relationship to the reality.

The Reality of Oil Import by the United States

Most recent data released by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy show that two countries exported more than 1.40 million barrels of crude per day (b/d) to the U.S., while four other countries exported over 1 million b/d of crude oil (see Table 1). The top five exporting countries accounted for 68%.of U.S. crude oil imports in October 2008, while the top 10 sources accounted for approximately 86% of all U.S. crude oil imports.
Continue

Recent editorials in the Egyptian press have been harshly critical of the U.S. for the October 26, 2008 raid in Syria, and for the U.S.-Iraq security pact that is about to be signed. The papers are depicting the raid as a murderous attack on innocent civilians, and the pact as compromising Iraqi sovereignty. One paper stated that the only thing that can compel the U.S. to leave Iraq is the resistance.

Following are excerpts from the editorials:
Al-Ahram: The Attack in Syria Was Premeditated Murder
An editorial in the leading government daily Al-Ahram stated: "The U.S. had no justification for the crime of murdering Syrian civilians and infringing upon the sovereignty of an independent state. This brutal attack, carried out by American aircraft, targeted a nonmilitary building under construction in a Syrian village near the Iraqi border, and resulted in the death of eight construction workers who were inside it. By all standards, norms, charters and international laws, this [constitutes] aggression against an independent country and the premeditated murder of innocent civilians.

"The excuses presented by Washington to justify its aggression against Syria are unacceptable. Nobody can accept them, especially after the U.S. lost its credibility in the world at large, and in the Middle East in particular, by inventing the lie about Iraqi WMDs to justify its 2003 invasion and occupation of this country. America's bag of lies is full of ready-made excuses, justifications, and misleading explanations...
Continue

!ברוך הבא