Saturday, May 31, 2008

Diplomacy with Iran

Robert Naiman in Just Foreign Policy Blog "Kinzer Goes to Washington, Seeking Real Diplomacy with Iran" stated that: “The Bush Administration’s conception of “diplomacy” with Iran on the nuclear file is: how can we compel the Iranian leadership to abandon the enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil?” But the Bush Administration’s direction is not limited to uranium enrichment; the Bush Administration wants a system like Iranian pre-revolution government under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Pre-1979, the majority of Iranian foreign policies and many domestic policies were either dictated, or had to have approval from Washington. The Bush Administration wants to revisit 1953 regime change in Iran. Even then, Shah was frustrated with the Israeli Lobby influence in Washington.

Majority of Americans reject President Gorge Bush national and foreign policies. Many Americans would not approve President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's outspoken approach to Iranian foreign policy. But these two men are not the nations; they have limited terms of office.

Our present policy using the financial leverage and threat of physical attack has backfired over the last 20 years. This policy has promoted an opposite effect to the response we had anticipated; it has mobilized Iranian people in support of their government

Our national interests dictate that we start a frank dialogue with Iranian people and reestablish diplomatic relations. The negotiations are not between President George Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is between American and Iranian people. Both nations have competent diplomatic corps.

Iranian people all along have expressed their friendship toward the American people; while strongly have rejected the bullying policy toward their country.

Dialogue and frank diplomacy should create a positive response from Iranian people.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

American Foreign Policy and the World: A New Direction

1. Our recent foreign policy has adversely affected our international respect and leadership by our unilateralism and over use of our military power. We have replaced dialogue and diplomacy with invasion and subversions.

2. We have diminished the effectiveness of the United Nations and World Court.

3. We have over-vetoed against the United Nations resolutions where we should have supported the actions. These vetoes have castigated the United States as obstructionist in resolving many of the world problems.

Agenda for the New National Policy:

• US Foreign Policy must be a Reflection of Our National Character: Justice, Peace, Respect for Human Life, and Fair Treatment of all Other Nations.

• The future of our civilization is at risk of global annihilation by nuclear, biological and chemical arsenals of nations. For the civilization to survive, we must eliminate the nuclear arsenals.

• We must rely on the International Court and the United Nations to resolve the regional conflicts.

• The global environment must be protected and the adverse effect of human activities reversed or repaired.

• The global natural resources are diminishing rapidly by the world over population, over harvesting and destruction. These resources include fresh water and agricultural resources for production of food. World has to create equitable management of these resources. The United States must take the leadership position in these areas.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Federal States of Israel and Palestine as One Nation

We have had 60 years of experimenting about the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. The region would need help before we will be dragged into a World War III.

We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t fight wars after wars to support a non-working model of a two state solution. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.

Options for Israeli-Palestinian struggle?

The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel were resettled in 722 B.C. in Iran. Assyria, the nation that is now Iraq, took the 10 tribes captive and relocated them in Iran (historic Persia). Iranian Jews are descendent of these exiled tribes. Their exile is a historical fact. Often, the people defeated were scattered and exiled. Judah and Benjamin, two tribes later known as the Jews, claim Israel as their as their ancient homeland.

Jews and the Palestinians, whatever they were called then, were both in Middle East at the same time. Both Arabs and Jews have historical claims to the land.

No one can reject the fact that creation of Israel on the Palestinian land has created tremendous political and economical problems for the United States and the world. World (the United Nation) may have to look outside of the box to diffuse the problems.

One solution would be for Israel joining us as a member of the Unites States’ Common Wealth. The United States are already supporting Israel economically, politically and by sharing intelligence and military hardware. In addition, some Israeli Americans with both Israeli and American citizenships serve in the Israeli Armed Forces. Our great American Armed Forces will protect the common wealth as they would the homeland.

Would it be politically more advantages for the United States to manage the Jewish state as a member of our Common Wealth?

The Israeli Common Wealth will be free to exercise the religious freedom that our great nation would offer without being isolated among the hostile Arabs.

The Common Wealth would have to include the Arabs who were forced to leave the land when Zionist invaded the land. It should also include all of the land called by Palestinian as their homeland and by Israeli as their state. I don't suggest this proposal would work or be acceptable by Israel. In my opinion, this may be more destructive for the USA and would not help the Middle Eastern conflict in the future.

Then, what next?

Would really two nation model for Palestinian and Israeli work in the future? Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.

Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.

Both Jewish and Palestinians have paid a high price for a failed system to consider the human side of the Israeli-Jewish struggle for a lasting peace.

I suggest that only as one nation, Federal State of Israel-Palestine, the peace may endure. We, Americans, have failed to see the both side of the struggle for a lasting peace. The two cousins may have to kiss and forgive for all the hurt they have caused and endured. As Semitic people, they have common historical and religious heritage.