Tony Blair, after mediating Israel’s new Gaza import policies, is marking three years as Quartet peace envoy.

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”—2 Thessalonians 5:3

“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.”
—Jeremiah 6:14

Next week, Tony Blair will mark three years as the Quartet’s Middle East envoy – the official tasked by the UN, the EU, the US and Russia with coordinating efforts to achieve an Israeli- Palestinian peace accord.

He took up the post immediately on resigning as British prime minister after a staggering 10 years in that job, and has played a critical behind-the-scenes role in this one. Notably, for instance, he has coordinated between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority on the easing of restrictions on movement in the West Bank and the facilitation of major West Bank infrastructure projects. He was also a central player in this week’s Israeli government decision to change its policy on imports to Gaza – from one that barred everything that wasn’t on a permitted list, to one that allowed everything that wasn’t on an outlawed list.

Blair has long styled himself, and been perceived, as a firm friend of Israel. There are those who argue that his gradual slide from office in the UK, in fact, though primarily associated with his deeply unpopular partnership with President George W. Bush in the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, was also a consequence of his similarly unpopular support for Israel, notably at the time of the Second Lebanon War. Simultaneously, he has been a firm advocate of the statebuilding efforts of the Palestinian Authority leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad.

Throughout his three years in the Quartet envoy’s post, indeed, he has been consistently optimistic – “stupidly so,” he half-joked, in a self-deprecating aside during our interview – about the prospects of a viable Israeli-Palestinian accord. But he has always stressed the need for “a bottom-up approach” in which improvements in daily life on the ground for Palestinians, and in security for Israelis, create the climate for political progress. “When that’s aligned, you’ve got a chance,” he said in our conversation this week, which took place at his rooftop headquarters at Jerusalem’s American Colony Hotel.

Excerpts:

The decision to ease the blockade presumably means it will now be easier for Hamas to maintain its hold on Gaza. If the goal remains Hamas no longer running Gaza, how now might that be achieved?

The only way of making sense of this for the future is that either the grip of Hamas on Gaza is loosened or alternatively Hamas changes. I personally think that for those Palestinians who want to see peace, it is better that life for the people in Gaza is improved.

People say to me: ‘Well, Hamas get the benefit’ [of the easing of the blockade]. I’m not sure that’s true. In a way, it suits those elements that don’t want peace to have Gaza in the situation where they can say that ‘there’s a sort of humanitarian crisis that’s been caused by Israel,’ where they can smuggle stuff through the tunnels and where the legitimate economy is squeezed.

Long term, all of this comes back to the same thing, which is that if you can create a serious and credible momentum for peace, then Hamas is weakened if it does not change its positions. If there is no momentum for peace, then [Hamas is] strengthened.

But there hasn’t been progress on the diplomatic front. There haven’t even been direct talks for more than a year now.

There are two positive directions: First of all, whatever the stalemate diplomatically, the fact is there has been progress on the West Bank. The economy is growing 10 percent [per annum] there. We just held this Palestinian investment conference. There were hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment announced.

[Second], the way the Palestinian Authority is operating on the security front is a world away from where it was a few years ago. You go to Nablus, Jenin and places like that, and there is a proper Palestinian security presence.

And I hope that in the next couple of months we will turn these [George Mitchell-brokered] indirect talks into direct negotiations. There’s no reason really not to.

Except that the PA says it doesn’t want to.

Well you can create circumstances in which they understand it’s in everyone’s interest to sit down and talk and see if there’s a basis for agreement.

My theory for this is and always has been something very simple: It is hard for Israel to contemplate a Palestinian state unless it can be sure that state will be securely and stably governed. That’s the basic problem.

As I say to people, if Israel thinks that what’s happened in Gaza is about to happen on the West Bank, it would be absurd to say that could be treated with indifference. This is not just a question of borders; it’s a question of the nature of the Palestinian state, how it’s governed, whether there is a stable, predictable basis for long-term peace.

That’s why I’ve always said the bottom-up approach is the right approach. Which is not to say that substitutes for a political negotiation. But it is only when there is an alignment between what you’re trying to negotiate politically, and what is actually happening on the ground – which for the Palestinians is about daily life, and for the Israelis it’s about security – that you’ve got a chance.

When that’s not aligned, you’ve got no chance – which is why the political negotiations up to now haven’t worked.

The narrative we hear from the Prime Minister’s Office is that the negotiating process can’t work because the Palestinians think that if they just wait, the EU or the US are going to impose a solution.

There is no solution that can simply be imposed.

Does the PA recognize this? I think so, yes.

The most that certain parameters can ever do is help define a direction the parties [already] wish to go in. The idea that you suddenly slap down a solution, and say, ‘That’s it, there you are, I’ve decided it’ – that’s not the way it works.

Personally, I think that the Palestinians understand that this has got to be built over time. They simply want to know that the Israelis are serious about giving the Palestinians a state, and that the negotiations will be credible. That’s what they say to me, and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is building a state in the West Bank. But is he building a state ready to reconcile with Israel?

Yes. He’s a total supporter of a two-state solution.

And is this Israeli government prepared to take the necessary steps?

Yes, I think they are, in the right circumstances. People ask me from the outside, ‘Is Bibi Netanyahu prepared for a Palestinian state?’ I say, ‘yes, in the right circumstances.’ And they say, ‘Well, you’re qualifying it.’ And I say, ‘You’ve got to qualify it.’

The truth is that if the circumstances are right – and those circumstances, from the point of view of Israel, are about their long-term security – then yes, I think people are prepared to recognize that a Palestinian state is the right solution.

But if you can’t deal with the security issue, the circumstances aren’t right.

This is why I think that what Fayyad is doing is so important.

In the end, security is not just a question for Israel. It’s a question for the Palestinians. If you want a properly governed state, you’ve got to have proper functioning security forces.

You’ve got to have one rule of law. You’ve got to have courts, prisons, prosecuting authorities.

You’ve got to have the full infrastructure of a judicial and criminal system. And if you don’t have that, you’re always at risk of a disintegration of the most basic function of statehood, which is to provide law and order.

This shift that you’ve mediated now, on what goes into Gaza, was a consequence of pressure on Israel following the fatal interception of the Mavi Marmara…?

I’ve been talking about this with the prime minister and his colleagues for a long time, actually. My argument was and always has been that there is a very clear distinction, the only distinction in the end you can sensibly justify, between the security needs of Israel and [the] daily life [needs of Gazans].

This is a position I actually believe the prime minister feels more comfortable with, because you can justify it.

So the previous policy, aimed at weakening Hamas and placing pressure for the release of Gilad Schalit by imposing restrictions that affect every Gazan, was a mistake that should have been corrected in any case?

The trouble is you have the tunnels, which Hamas have a complete grip over. There was and is an alternative means of goods coming into Gaza.

Your statement in support of the new Gaza arrangements on Sunday was interpreted by the Prime Minister’s Office as saying that you, and as a result the international community, now recognize Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. Is that wishful thinking?

No. I think people understand that Israel is going to insist that any stuff that comes into Gaza is checked. That’s not the point, frankly.

The point is not to get things into Gaza port; the point is to get things into Gaza. And if you have this new policy in place, you can do that.

This was seen here as very significant because there are other boats coming. If you stand up and say, ‘the naval blockade is legitimate,’ then Israel feels it has greater legitimacy to act against those boats.

Yes. Where I divide from some others in the international community is that I think that Israel has got a genuine security concern that it is entitled to meet. For me the fact that Israel says, ‘Look, we’re not going to allow things into the [Gaza] seaport but you can bring them to Ashdod, and we can check them, and then they can come on to Gaza,’ I think that is a reasonable position.

What you can’t justify is saying that basic foodstuffs and household items can’t go into Gaza.

Under the new arrangements, would you say to anybody who is considering joining a flotilla to bring aid to Gaza, shouldn’t be doing so?

What I say to anybody organizing a flotilla is that if we implement this [new eased] policy, so that the things that people are trying to bring in by flotilla you can bring in through the legitimate existing crossings, do it that way. That is the more sensible way to do that.

What is the thinking about how to give the PA credit from this? There’s talk about putting the PA at the crossings. Has Israel signed an agreement…

The PA does not benefit, and President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad do not benefit, from the conditions for people in Gaza being bad. Improving the conditions of people in Gaza, by whatever means, is helpful to the overall cause. So, yes, there’s an issue obviously about the PA at the crossings, and that’s something that will be explored now. Likewise, the European Union mission at Rafah. These are conversations that we will have.

What do you think of those of your international colleagues who believe some effort should be made to reach out to Hamas?

It would be better if Hamas were part of this process. But it’s their choice, really. When people say the international community should reach out to Hamas, it’s not as if Hamas aren’t being spoken to. People talk about this as if there was some failure of communication.

There are plenty of people that talk to Hamas. The Egyptians are talking to Hamas constantly. People talk to Hamas, and Hamas know perfectly well what they need to do in order to come into the process.

It’s very important to describe these Quartet rules [which require Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements as pre-conditions for international legitimization] not in the sense of a piece of bureaucracy.

The point is that if you want to be part of a negotiation for a state of Palestine and a state of Israel, one, it’s quite difficult to do that in circumstances where you’re sitting across the table from people and saying, ‘We reserve the right to kill your citizens at the same time as we’re having this talk.’ That in my view doesn’t work as a negotiation. And two, obviously, it’s quite difficult if you say, ‘But we don’t actually accept that you should have state, that your state exists.’ These [Quartet rules] actually derive from a sensible political analysis. They don’t derive from some capricious folly on the part of the international community.

Sometimes there are statements that come out of the Hamas leadership that seem to indicate they’re prepared to make a change.

But then, other times, they don’t. Take the Gaza situation now: If you really want to make this work, to take the change that’s been made by Israel in its policy, and say, ‘Right we’re going to get behind this and use this as an opportunity to boost the whole process,’ I mean, what would you do? You’d release Gilad Schalit, wouldn’t you? And you’d say, ‘Now we can get a whole lot of prisoners released from the Palestinian side,’ and everyone would feel better.

So if they want to play a constructive [role], the door is absolutely open. But they’ve got to want to be part of it. I don’t think this is a failure of ours – that we’re not reaching out, or failing to communicate. They know perfectly well what we’re saying and why we’re saying it.

Yet we see Abbas trying, or purportedly trying, for some kind of reconciliation with Hamas – when, if he is reconciled, that complicates any prospect of moving forward.

When people, particularly from the Arab media, say, ‘Don’t you think Palestinian reconciliation is a good thing?” I say, ‘Yes, it’s a really good thing, but the only reconciliation that ever works is one that’s genuine.’ The question is: On what terms can you achieve that unity? For example, if the unity was to be at the expense of the progress we’ve made on Palestinian security, that would not be a sensible deal.

When you take a step back and you analyze this whole situation, the basic problem is that people have lost faith in the political process to deliver a credible solution – on the Palestinian side and on the Israeli side. It was only when I came back to this after leaving office [as British prime minister ] that I understood the impact of the [second] intifada and the disengagement from Gaza on the Israeli mindset. The combination of those two things fundamentally changed the way Israelis look at this situation. Their position now is to say, ‘Show us that if we make peace, it’s a genuine, lasting peace with a Palestinian state that we can predict, that is stable, and that is a secure partner for us. Show us that, and we’ll give it a go. But if you can’t show us that, the experience of the last 10 years makes us very doubtful.’

And are we being shown that? What you have are contradictory elements.

If you look at what’s happened in Gaza with Hamas, then you would be skeptical. All I’m saying to Israeli [public] opinion, is that if you look at what Fayyad has done with Palestinian security and the changes in the economy on the West Bank, you should at least factor that in and therefore not exclude the possibility that we can actually make progress.

This will only work if you build the state and its institutions bottom-up as well as negotiate these traditional political issues top-down.

How troubled are you, and how troubled should we be, about the demonization and delegitimization of Israel? It does trouble me because I think that the security of Israel is a fundamental part of our security too, in countries like mine.

The lesson is to take the ground that is always justifiable. And there is ground that is justifiable. That’s why the policy we’ve now articulated on Gaza is a sensible policy. I, as a friend of Israel, can go out and justify this policy. As you put it in your paper, ‘Coriander, yes; Kassams, no.’ I can justify that policy.

What I found hard to justify was ‘Coriander, no.’ There is a constant battle here [against delegitimization] that anyone in Israel is well aware of. That’s why the smart thing is always to be on the ground that you can defend most easily.

CAIRO — Arab nations on Saturday endorsed indirect peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, a move that likely paves the way for the start of long-stalled U.S.-brokered negotiations.

To view dictionary popup window put your cursor on the blue words

Israel in the Last Days

“And he shall set up an ensign •Strongs 5251: nace; from 5264; a flag; also a sail; by implication, a flagstaff; generally a signal; figuratively, a token:—banner, pole, sail, (en-)sign, standard.
•Strongs 5264: naw-sas´; a primitive root; to gleam from afar, i.e. to be conspicuous as a signal; or rather perhaps a denominative from 5251 (and identical with 5263, through the idea of a flag as fluttering in the wind); to raise a beacon:—lift up as an ensign. for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
—Isaiah 11:12

Jerusalem

“And he shall pass over to his strong hold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace•Strongs 8574: tannuwr, tan-noor´; from 5216; a fire-pot:—furnace, oven.
•Strongs 5612: niyr, neer; or rˆn nir, neer; also r´yn neyr, nare; or r´n ner, nare; or (feminine) h∂r´n nerah, nay-raw´; from a primitive root (see 5214; 5135) properly, meaning to glisten; a lamp (i.e. the burner) or light (literally or figuratively):—candle, lamp, light. in Jerusalem.
—Isaiah 31:9

The United States has proposed the talks to end the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians over the conditions for resuming negotiations, which broke down more than a year ago amid Israel’s military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

The green light from Arab foreign ministers comes after a first attempt to get indirect talks going collapsed in March when Israel announced a new Jewish housing project in east Jerusalem. The Israeli decision enraged Palestinians, who claim east Jerusalem as a future capital, and drew fierce criticism from the United States. It also led to the worst rift in years between the U.S. and Israel, Washington’s closest Mideast ally.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signaled that he is willing to resume negotiations, but has been waiting for approval from Arab countries, which would provide Abbas the political cover he needs to return to talks.

Arab League chief, Amr Moussa, stressed Saturday that the league would be keeping a close eye on the talks, and said there will be no transition from indirect to direct negotiations. Arabs want a total freeze in settlement building before returning to direct talks.

This is the second time Arab states have backed indirect negotiations with Israel; the first time was in early March. The Arab foreign ministers expressed reservations Saturday about backing the talks again, and warned that peace efforts would collapse if Israel continued to build settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

They also said they wouldn’t endorse an extension on the four-month window they originally gave the talks in March, a decision that leaves the U.S. only two months to make headway in the shuttle negotiations.

Syria and Lebanon rejected the decision, saying the U.S. had not provided adequate safeguards needed to renew negotiations.

There was no immediate comment from Israeli officials.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters Saturday in Shanghai, China, that the Palestinians’ executive committee will meet soon to make a final decision on resuming talks.

He also confirmed reports that he will visit Washington later this month for talks with U.S. officials “to push the peace process forward.”

On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the talks would start next week, and U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell is expected back in the region soon.

The negotiations will not be the face-to-face meetings the Obama administration had hoped to put in place more than a year after peace efforts broke down amid Israel’s military offensive on Hamas-ruled Gaza.

The Palestinians have refused to sit down at the same table with Israel until it agrees to freeze all construction in West Bank settlements and in east Jerusalem – two areas that the Palestinians want for an independent state along with the Gaza Strip.

The indirect talks, with Mitchell shuttling between the two sides, were meant as a compromise.

Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi cautioned that the Palestinians would still be waiting to see stronger Israeli compromises on settlement construction.

“If it is to succeed then there are requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to give Mitchell’s shuttle diplomacy … some credibility and substance,” she said. “Of course we need to see on the ground that Israel has stopped settlement activities in Jerusalem, around Jerusalem and everywhere else.”

Despite recent turbulence in U.S. relations with Israel, President Obama is “seriously considering” proposing an American peace plan to resolve the Palestinian conflict, according to two top administration officials.

To view dictionary popup window put your cursor on the blue words

Israel in the Last Days

“And I will bring again the captivity•Strongs 7622: shbuwth, sheb-ooth´; or shbiyth, sheb-eeth´; from 7617; exile, concretely, prisoners; figuratively, a former state of prosperity:—captive(-ity).
•Strongs 7617: shabah, shaw-baw´; a primitive root; to transport into captivity:—(bring away, carry, carry away, lead, lead away, take) captive(-s), drive (take) away. of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up•Strongs 5428: nathash, naw-thash´; a primitive root; to tear away:—destroy, forsake, pluck (out, up, by the roots), pull up, root out (up), x utterly. out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.”
—Amos 9:14-15

Peace and Safety

“And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”
—Daniel 8:25

“Everyone knows the basic outlines of a peace deal,” said one of the senior officials, citing the agreement that was nearly reached at Camp David in 2000 and in subsequent negotiations. He said that an American plan, if launched, would build upon past progress on such issues as borders, the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. The second senior official said that “90 percent of the map would look the same” as what has been agreed in previous bargaining.

The American peace plan would be linked with the issue of confronting Iran, which is Israel’s top priority, explained the second senior official. He described the issues as two halves of a single strategic problem: “We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region,” as well as the Israelis and Palestinians.

“Incrementalism hasn’t worked,” continued the second official, explaining that the United States cannot allow the Palestinian problem to keep festering — providing fodder for Iran and other extremists. “As a global power with global responsibilities, we have to do something.” He said the plan would “take on the absolute requirements of Israeli security and the requirements of Palestinian sovereignty in a way that makes sense.”

The White House is considering detailed interagency talks to frame the strategy and form a political consensus for it. The second official likened the process to the review that produced Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said the administration could formally launch the Middle East initiative by this fall.

White House interest in proposing a peace plan has been growing in recent months, but it accelerated after the blow-up that followed the March 9 Israeli announcement, during Vice President Biden’s visit, that Israel would build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem. U.S. officials began searching for bolder ways to address Israeli and Palestinian concerns, rather than continuing the same stale debates.

Obama’s attention was focused by a March 24 meeting at the White House with six former national security advisers. The group has been meeting privately every few months at the request of Gen. Jim Jones, who currently holds the job. In the session two weeks ago, the group had been talking about global issues for perhaps an hour when Obama walked in and asked what was on people’s minds.

Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser for presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, spoke up first, according to a senior administration official. He urged Obama to launch a peace initiative based on past areas of agreement; he was followed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, who described some of the strategic parameters of such a plan.

Support for a new approach was also said to have been expressed by Sandy Berger and Colin Powell, who served as national security advisers for presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, respectively. The consensus view was apparently shared by the other two attendees, Frank Carlucci and Robert C. McFarlane from the Reagan years.

Obama’s embrace of a peace plan would reverse the administration’s initial strategy, which was to try to coax concessions from the Israelis and Palestinians, with the United States offering “bridging proposals” later. This step-by-step process was favored by George Mitchell, the president’s special representative for the Middle East, who believed a similar approach had laid the groundwork for his breakthrough in Northern Ireland peace talks.

The fact that Obama is weighing the peace plan marks his growing confidence in Jones, who has been considering this approach for the past year. But the real strategist in chief is Obama himself. If he decides to launch a peace plan, it would mark a return to the ambitious themes the president sounded in his June 2009 speech in Cairo.

A political battle royal is likely to begin soon, with Israeli officials and their supporters in the United States protesting what they fear would be an American attempt to impose a settlement and arguing to focus instead on Iran. The White House rejoinder is expressed this way by one of the senior officials: “It’s not either Iran or the Middle East peace process. You have to do both.”

The European Union hopes it would encourage people to create a safer world.

To view dictionary popup window put your cursor on the blue scripture words.

New World Order

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful•Strongs 1763: dchal, deh-khal´; (Aramaic) corresponding to 2119; to slink, i.e. (by implication) to fear, or (causatively) be formidable:—make afraid, dreadful, fear, terrible. and terrible•Strongs 574: emtaniy, em-taw-nee´; (Aramaic) from a root corresponding to that of 4975; well-loined (i.e. burly) or mighty:—terrible., and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.”
—Daniel 7:7

Peace and Safety

“And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”
—Daniel 8:25

President’s Surprise Selection For Creating A New Climate In International Politics Is Praised, Questioned, Dismissed

Calling the United States’ president “the world’s leading spokesman” for using diplomacy and cooperation to meet global challenges, the Norwegian Nobel Committee this morning conferred the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama.

For an announcement about a peace prize, this one was a bombshell.

CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips said one could almost hear the gasps when the committee made its announcement.

The committee doesn’t release a short list of candidates (there were 205 nominations this year), and so the award to Mr. Obama came out of the blue – even to the White House.

CBS News correspondent Larry Miller reports that world reaction has been largely favorable.

Read The Nobel Prize Citation

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama embodies the “return of America into the hearts of the people of the world.”

In a message to the U.S. president, Sarkozy expresses his “very great joy” for Obama and says the honor should strengthen the U.S. leader’s determination to work toward peace, justice and “maintaining our planet’s great balances.”

Yom Egeland, the executive director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, said the Committee’s choice of Mr. Obama was “courageous and positive.” Egeland said he believes it was the president’s U.N. Security Council resolution to rid the world of nuclear weapons that resulted in the award going to Mr. Obama.

He also said the award may strengthen Mr. Obama’s hand in winning international cooperation on key initiatives including climate change, but cautions Afghanistan is a “special case” where he does not expect other nations to increase support for the United States’ military effort there.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Mr Obama’s efforts for global peace make him the appropriate recipient.

The European Union hopes it would encourage people to create a safer world.

The 2008 Peace Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari, the former Finnish president and veteran troubleshooter in international conflicts, said the award should “encourage” Mr. Obama’s Middle East peace efforts.

“We do not yet have a peace in the Middle East … this time it was very clear that they wanted to encourage Obama to move on these issues,” Ahtisaari told CNN television. “This is a clear encouragement to do something on this issue, I wish him good luck.”

But former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a 1983 Nobel Peace laureate after co-founding the trade union Solidarity and leading a 1980 strike in the Gdansk shipyards against the Soviet-bloc government, said, “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act.

“This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let’s see if he perseveres. Let’s give him time to act,” Walesa said.

But timing was not an issue with Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in
1984. He said Mr. Obama’s award shows great things are expected from him in coming years.

“It’s an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all,” Tutu said. “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.”

The Palestinian Authority’s Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat welcomed the Nobel Committee’s decision, saying he hopes President Obama will achieve peace in the Middle East. But ordinary Palestinians are more skeptical. CBS News’ Robert Berger reports many say President Obama has talked about peace, but on the ground, nothing has changed.

Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said in a statement, “I believe the Nobel prize will strengthen President Obama’s ability to contribute to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.”

While Israeli Parliament Speaker Reuven Rivlin described the Nobel decision as “very, very strange,” he said it could encourage the international community to force a peace agreement on Israel.

But a former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. described the award as “premature.”

A Hebrew University political scientist and a former director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry called the Nobel decision “brilliant” and said it should provide momentum and encouragement to his peace effort.

“It’s a great idea, because it tells him, ‘Don’t break.The world appreciates you,’” said Alon Liel. “It could give new energies, and an indication to people in this region that the world is not going to
give up on this idea.”

In Pakistan’s central city of Multan, the reaction of radical Islamic leader Hanif Jalandhri was more muted, saying he was neither happy nor surprised by Mr. Obama’s award.

“But I do hope that Obama will make efforts to work for peace, and he will try to scrap the policies of (former U.S. President George) Bush who put the world peace in danger,” said Jalandhri, the secretary general of a group that oversees 12,500 seminaries.

“This prize has tripled Obama’s responsibilities, and we can hope that he will try to prove through his actions that he deserved this honor.”

A dissenting voice was raised from an Islamic Jihad leader who dismissed the prize as “political, not based on morals.”

One London political commentator suggested the President won the Peace Prize because “He isn’t George Bush.”

That qualification found no support from the Taliban, which condemned Mr. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, saying that he has not brought peace but rather has continued the policies of his predecessor.

“We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Agence France-Presse by telephone from an undisclosed location.

“When Obama was elected president, we were hopeful he would keep his promise to bring change. But he brought no change, he has continued the same old strategy as (President George W.) Bush.

“He reinforces the war in Afghanistan, he sent more troops to Afghanistan and is considering sending yet more. He has shed Afghan blood and he continues to bleed Afghans and to boost the war here,” he said.

“A New Climate in International Politics”

In its announcement in Oslo this morning, the Committee said, “The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The Committee attached special significance to the president’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

The Committee said that as president Mr. Obama has created “a new climate in international politics.”

“Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the U.S.A. is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

This is a surprising and controversial announcement, proving that President Obama, whatever his challenges domestically, overseas is still a very popular figure, reports Phillips.

The award appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Mr. Obama’s predecessor for his largely unilateral military actions in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks – as well as a recognition of the new administration’s efforts to turn around world opinion towards the United States.

In 2002 President Bush was himself nominated (along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair) by a right-wing Norwegian politician for the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting democracy, after having invaded Afghanistan. Another right-wing parliamentarian in Norway nominated Mr. Bush and Blair again for the 2004 Peace Prize. Jan Simonsen said then that even though weapons of mass destruction – the publicly-stated reason for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq – proved unfounded, the two still deserved the peace prize for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein.

But the prizes went to others. In 2002 the Nobel committee chairman said that awarding the prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter for his mediation in international conflicts should be seen as a “kick in the leg” to the Bush administration’s hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.

Five years later, the committee honored Mr. Bush’s adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said, “I don’t think anybody expected this. The Nobel Committee, I find interesting, said they awarded this for changing the tone of American politics. It’s almost as if they’re saying we’re giving you the Nobel Peace Prize for winning the election. President Bush was very unpopular in Europe and it is almost as if this is more of a comment on the previous administration than it is on the new one.”

World leaders have been awarded the Nobel Prize before, notes Phillips, but never this early in office and never for the intention of their policies rather than the results.

In the Kenyan city of Kisumu, the home province of President Obama’s father, local radio shows interrupted broadcasting to have live phone-ins so callers could congratulate Mr. Obama on his win. Traders in the market huddled around handheld radios and shouted the news from the windows of local minibuses – known as matatus.

“When I heard it on the radio I said Hallelujah!” said 65-year-old James Andaro. “It’s God’s blessing. This win is for Africa.”

Matatu driver Ajos Rambanya, 27, said: “I am very happy. Someone who is good is known by his deeds and Obama has proven that.”

In Washington CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante said the news hit the White House like a thunderclap out of nowhere.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (whose own e-mail response to reporters this morning was the single word “Wow”) told the president, who said he was humbled by the committee’s decision.

This is particularly stunning because it comes as the president is in the process of deciding whether or not to send more combat troops to Afghanistan, Plante wondered if winning a peace prize would constrain his options?

Schieffer did not think the peace prize would affect the president’s decision on Afghanistan. “I think where the impact will be is the political reaction in this country from both sides.”

Schieffer noted one European commentator who asked whether the award would represent a “poisoned chalice” for Mr. Obama. “In other words, is this going to hurt the president rather than help him? And I must say, when you see the reaction that we got to the United States not getting the Olympics from people on the conservative right, you have to wonder: Is this going to widen the part of partisan divide rather than bring people together?”

BRUSSELS – NATO proposed a new era of cooperation with Russia Friday, calling for joint work with Moscow and Washington on missile defense after the United States scrapped a planned anti-missile system.

To view dictionary popup window put your cursor on the blue scripture words.

Perplexity

“…upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity•Strongs 640: ajpori÷a aporia, ap-or-ee´-a; from the same as 639; a (state of) quandary:—perplexity.
•Strongs 639: aporeo, ap-or-eh´-o; from a compound of 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 4198; to have no way out, i.e. be at a loss (mentally):— (stand in) doubt, be perplexed….”
—Luke 21:25

Perilous Times

“This know also, that in the last days perilous•Strongs 5467: chalepos, khal-ep-os´; perhaps from 5465 through the idea of reducing the strength; difficult, i.e. dangerous, or (by implication) furious:—fierce, perilous. times shall come.”
—2 Timothy 3:1-2a

”Without natural affection, trucebreakers•Strongs 786: aspondos, as´-pon-dos; from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 4689; literally, without libation (which usually accompanied a treaty), i.e. (by implication) truceless:—implacable, truce-breaker., false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,”
—2 Timothy 3:3

Editors note about the word perilous•FYI: The Greek word (chalepos) (perilous) is only used one other time in the New Testament, Matthew 8:28. There it is translated as (fierce) when describing the nature of the devils that possess Legion and his cohort..

Peace and Safety

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”—2 Thessalonians 5:3

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described as “correct and brave” President Barack Obama’s decision to drop the missile shield intended for Europe by predecessor George W. Bush. Russia’s NATO envoy welcomed the NATO cooperation proposals.

Some military experts saw the moves as a sign of weakness by Obama which Moscow hardliners would want to exploit further. Putin called in a speech Friday for Obama to follow up with concessions on trade and technology transfer.

Others described abandonment of the system as a bold gesture that could improve frosty relations between the West and Russia, but also said many obstacles remained to better ties between the former Cold War foes.

“I do believe that it is possible for NATO and Russia to make a new beginning and to enjoy a far more productive relationship in the future,” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in his first big policy speech since taking office in August.

“We should explore the potential for linking the U.S., NATO and Russian missile defense systems at an appropriate time.”

Rasmussen called for more cooperation on ending the conflict in Afghanistan, fighting piracy at sea and ensuring Iran does not develop nuclear arms. He also proposed a joint review of global security threats.

He gave few details of how his proposals would work but they were welcomed by Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and one of Moscow’s loudest critics of the planned U.S. missile shield.

OBSTACLES REMAIN

“It was very positive, very constructive and we have to analyze together all the sec-gen’s proposals for the new beginning of NATO-Russia cooperation,” Rogozin said.

He indicated Russia would not go ahead with plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania, if the United States abandoned its plans to place ground-based interceptors in Poland and use a radar site in the Czech Republic.

NATO’s ties with Russia have improved since the Cold War ended but deteriorated again following the defense alliance’s eastward expansion to take in former Communist-ruled countries in eastern Europe and Moscow’s war in Georgia last year.

Contentious issues include NATO’s offer of eventual membership for Georgia and fellow former Soviet republic Ukraine, which was opposed at a NATO summit last year by France and Germany, and is deeply resented by Russia.

NATO is troubled by Russia’s recognition of the rebellious South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions in Georgia as independent states, and there is lingering mutual mistrust.

“If I was only born yesterday, I would be delighted, but I was not born yesterday,” Rogozin said, adding that there had been several false starts in efforts to improve relations.

CONCERNS OVER IRAN

Washington had proposed the shield because of concerns Iran was trying to develop nuclear warheads — something Iran denies — and could mount them on long-range missiles. But Russia saw it as a threat to its own missile defenses and overall security.

Under a new plan, Washington would initially deploy ships with missile interceptors and in a second phase would field land-based defense systems. Rasmussen said no NATO ally would be weakened by the decision.

Putin, speaking to investors in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, said Obama’s decision to scrap the missile plans was positive.

“I expect that after this correct and brave decision, others will follow, including the complete removal of all restrictions on the transfer of high technology to Russia and (U.S.) activity to widen the membership of the World Trade Organization to (include) Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus,” Putin said.

(Writing by Timothy Heritage; Editing by Charles Dick)

SEOUL – North Korea said on Tuesday it would quit international nuclear disarmament talks and restart a plant that makes bomb-grade plutonium after the United Nations chastised it for launching a long-range rocket.

To view dictionary popup window put your cursor on the blue scripture words.

Perplexity

“…upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity•Strongs 640: aporia, ap-or-ee´-a; from the same as 639; a (state of) quandary:—perplexity.
•Strongs 639: aporeo, ap-or-eh´-o; from a compound of 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 4198; to have no way out, i.e. be at a loss (mentally):— (stand in) doubt, be perplexed….”
—Luke 21:25

Perilous Times

“This know also, that in the last days perilous•Strongs 5467: chalepos, khal-ep-os´; perhaps from 5465 through the idea of reducing the strength; difficult, i.e. dangerous, or (by implication) furious:—fierce, perilous. times shall come.”
—2 Timothy 3:1-2a

”Without natural affection, trucebreakers•Strongs 786: aspondos, as´-pon-dos; from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 4689; literally, without libation (which usually accompanied a treaty), i.e. (by implication) truceless:—implacable, truce-breaker., false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,”
—2 Timothy 3:3

Editors note about the word perilous•FYI: The Greek word (chalepos) (perilous) is only used one other time in the New Testament, Matthew 8:28. There it is translated as (fierce) when describing the nature of the devils that possess Legion and his cohort..

The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously condemned North Korea’s launch on April 5 as contravening a U.N. ban, and demanded enforcement of existing sanctions against Pyongyang.

Prickly North Korea said in a Foreign Ministry statement that the U.N. action and separate six-country nuclear talks were an infringement of its sovereignty and it “will never participate in the (nuclear) talks any longer nor … be bound to any agreement of the six-party talks.”

The statement, carried by the official KCNA news agency, said North Korea would “bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defense in every way,” actively consider building its own light-water nuclear reactor, “revive nuclear facilities and reprocess used nuclear fuel rods.”

Experts said the impoverished and energy-starved North lacks the technology to make an advanced light-water reactor.

Financial markets in Seoul and Tokyo were not affected by Pyongyang’s announcement, with investors seeing it as more of the saber rattling they have come to expect from the reclusive state.

North Korea began taking apart its Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear plant more than a year ago as a part of a disarmament-for-aid deal it reached with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.

The U.N. response to a launch widely seen as a disguised test of a long-range missile will have little immediate impact on the North’s faltering economy and the divided international reaction could embolden leader Kim Jong-il, analysts said.

Japan and Russia urged North Korea to return to the often-stalled nuclear talks.

But China, which shares a border with North Korea and is the closest thing Pyongyang can claim as a major ally, called on all parties to “pay attention to the broader picture” and exercise “calm and restraint.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Beijing still hoped to achieve the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula through dialogue and negotiations.

Experts said the North could have its plant that separates plutonium from spent fuel rods up and running again in as little as three months.

“North Korea’s statements are always a mixture of bluff and real threats, but I think the threats are more real this time, and I think they’ll continue for the next few months at least,” said Shi Yinhong, a regional security expert at Renmin University in Beijing.

CHINA AND NORTH KOREA

Announcements like this from North Korea are part of a familiar pattern of behavior, and as such it is not likely to be a destabilizing factor for regional economies.

“Market players have come to view belligerent North Korean statements as bargaining ploys that are not to be taken at face value,” said Tim Condon, an economist at ING Financial Markets in Singapore.

Chinese officials had originally called for restraint over the North Korean rocket launch. However, by subsequently joining the U.N. condemnation, Beijing has stoked uncertainty about how it intends to balance ties with Pyongyang against pressure from regional powers, which could have long-term implications.

“It means China is paying much more attention to the United States and Japan, and less to North Korea and its relations with North Korea,” said Shi.

The new U.N. measures may cause Beijing to curb trade in a few items but it will keep its flow of energy, grains and other materials that prop up the North’s broken-down economy.

The U.S.-authored statement, agreed on Saturday by the five permanent council members and Japan, ordered a U.N. sanctions committee to begin activating financial sanctions and an arms and limited trade embargo laid down in a resolution passed two-and-a-half years ago.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has basked in patriotic glory stemming from the launch in his state’s propaganda, which has helped him return to the limelight after a suspected stroke last August raised questions about his grip on power.

Kim, 67, made his first appearance last week at a major state event when he attended a meeting of a newly elected parliament. Analysts said this helped cement his legacy as he rearranged power structures in order to further tighten his iron grip over Asia’s only communist dynasty.

(Additional reporting by Chris Buckley and Lucy Hornby in Beijing, Yoo Choonsik, Kim Junghyun and Rhee So-eui in Seoul, Linda Sieg in Tokyo; Editing by John Chalmers)

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict called in his Easter message on Sunday for a renewed push for Israeli-Palestinian peace just weeks before he travels to the Holy Land for the first time as pontiff.

To view dictionary popup window put your cursor on the blue scripture words.

Peace and Safety

“For when they shall say, Peace•Strongs 1515: eirene, i-ray´-nay; probably from a primary verb eiro (to join); peace (literally or figuratively); by implication, prosperity:—one, peace, quietness, rest, + set at one again. and safety •Strongs 803: asphaleia, as-fal´-i-ah; from 804; security (literally or figuratively):—certainty, safety. ; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”
—1 Thessalonians 5:3

“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly•Strongs 7043: qalal, kaw-lal´; a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) light, literally (swift, small, sharp, etc.) or figuratively (easy, trifling, vile, etc.):—abate, make bright, bring into contempt, (ac-)curse, despise, (be) ease(-y, -ier), (be a, make, make somewhat, move, seem a, set) light(-en, -er, -ly, -ly afflict, -ly esteem, thing), x slight(-ly), be swift(-er), (be, be more, make, re-)vile, whet., saying, Peace•Strongs 7965: shalowm, shaw-lome´; or shalom, shaw-lome´; from 7999; safe, i.e. (figuratively) well, happy, friendly; also (abstractly) welfare, i.e. health, prosperity, peace:—x do, familiar, x fare, favour, + friend, x great, (good) health, (x perfect, such as be at) peace(-able, -ably), prosper(-ity, -ous), rest, safe(-ty), salute, welfare, (x all is, be) well, x wholly.,; peace•Strongs 7965: shalowm, shaw-lome´; or shalom, shaw-lome´; from 7999; safe, i.e. (figuratively) well, happy, friendly; also (abstractly) welfare, i.e. health, prosperity, peace:—x do, familiar, x fare, favour, + friend, x great, (good) health, (x perfect, such as be at) peace(-able, -ably), prosper(-ity, -ous), rest, safe(-ty), salute, welfare, (x all is, be) well, x wholly. when there is no peace•Strongs 7965: shalowm, shaw-lome´; or shalom, shaw-lome´; from 7999; safe, i.e. (figuratively) well, happy, friendly; also (abstractly) welfare, i.e. health, prosperity, peace:—x do, familiar, x fare, favour, + friend, x great, (good) health, (x perfect, such as be at) peace(-able, -ably), prosper(-ity, -ous), rest, safe(-ty), salute, welfare, (x all is, be) well, x wholly.“.
—Jeremiah 6:14

The pope also sent greetings to survivors of Italy’s devastating earthquake and urged all those fearful for their futures, for whatever reason, not to lose hope.
“At a time of world food shortage, of financial turmoil, of old and new forms of poverty … it is urgent to rediscover grounds for hope,” said the pontiff, wearing cream and gold-colored vestments.
The pope celebrated an Easter Mass for tens of thousands of people gathered in St Peter’s Square as Christians around the world commemorated Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
At the morning Mass, the pope told the faithful the resurrection was a “cry of victory that unites us all today.”
Then, in his twice-yearly “Urbi et Orbi” (to the city and the world) address, the pope said he would carry a message of reconciliation on his May 8-15 trip to the Holy Land.
“Reconciliation — difficult, but indispensable — is a precondition for a future of overall security and peaceful coexistence,” the pope said.
“It can only be achieved through renewed, persevering and sincere efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The pope’s comments came the same day that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu for the first since he became Israel’s prime minister. Abbas said both sides needed to advance peace efforts, Israeli officials said.
The German pope, who turns 82 this month, will visit the Jordanian capital Amman before going to Jerusalem as well as to Nazareth and Bethlehem.
It will be the first trip by a pope to the Holy Land since Pope John Paul visited in 2000 and, at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, asked God forgiveness for offences by Christians against Jews over the centuries.
It follows the worst crisis in Catholic-Jewish relations in half a century after Benedict lifted the excommunication of British Bishop Richard Williamson, who said in January no more than 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, rather than the six million figure widely accepted by historians.
Williamson also said he did not believe there had been any gas chambers at the concentration camps.
The Easter celebrations at the Vatican took place at a time when many Italians have shifted their attention to victims of Monday’s devastating earthquake, which killed at least 294 people in the nearby Abruzzo region.
The pope, who plans to visit the disaster zone soon, sent out a special greeting to those affected by the quake, Italy’s worst in three decades.
He urged them to have “the courage necessary to move ahead together building a future open to hope.”
The earthquake made nearly 40,000 people homeless, thousands of whom celebrated Easter in tent cities.
(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Sophie Hares)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama invoked Christian and Jewish holidays on Saturday to urge nations to confront together the challenges he saw firsthand during last week’s marathon trip to Europe.

Perilous Times

“This know also, that in the last days perilous•Strongs 5467: chalepos, khal-ep-os´; perhaps from 5465 through the idea of reducing the strength; difficult, i.e. dangerous, or (by implication) furious:—fierce, perilous. times shall come.”
—2 Timothy 3:1-2a

”But evil•Strongs 4190: poneros, pon-ay-ros´; from a derivative of 4192; hurtful, i.e. evil (properly, in effect or influence, and thus differing from 2556, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from 4550, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively, calamitous; also (passively) ill, i.e. diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, i.e. derelict, vicious, facinorous; neuter (singular) mischief, malice, or (plural) guilt; masculine (singular) the devil, or (plural) sinners:—bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked(-ness). See also 4191.
•Strongs 4192: ponos, pon´-os; from the base of 3993; toil, i.e. (by implication) anguish:—pain. men and seducers•Strongs 1114: goes, go´-ace; from goa¿w goao (to wail); properly, a wizard (as muttering spells), i.e. (by implication) an imposter:—seducer. shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
—2 Timothy 3:13

Editors note about the word perilous•FYI: The Greek word (chalepos) (perilous) is only used one other time in the New Testament, Matthew 8:28. There it is translated as (fierce) when describing the nature of the devils that possess Legion and his cohort.

Obama said no single nation can solve the problems stemming from the financial meltdown, climate change and nuclear weapons. Fresh from his first trip overseas as president, Obama asked Americans — and a global audience — to focus on areas of common interest instead of differences.
“These are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations.”
Obama pointed to his London meeting with leaders of the G-20 nations — a gathering that represented 85 percent of the global economy — where he pressed for increased regulation and economic stimulus. He also noted his attendance at the NATO summit in France to discuss strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as his speeches against nuclear weapons in the Czech Republic and about faith divisions in Turkey.
All are big-picture priorities for the young administration and most have general support among Obama’s U.S. constituents.
“With all that is at stake today, we cannot afford to talk past one another. We can’t afford to allow old differences to prevent us from making progress in areas of common concern,” Obama said. “We can’t afford to let walls of mistrust stand. Instead, we have to find — and build on — our mutual interests. For it is only when people come together, and seek common ground, that some of that mistrust can begin to fade. And that is where progress begins.”
Obama used the eight-day trip to highlight his ambitious foreign policy agenda, including starting negotiations with Russia about reducing nuclear stockpiles. Such talks, announced alongside Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, would be the first talks in years and are part of Obama’s pledge “to free the world from the menace of a nuclear nightmare.”
Taken as a package, Obama said, his agenda in Europe should be the common goals among people of faith during holy days of Easter and Passover.
“These are two very different holidays with their own very different traditions. But it seems fitting that we mark them both during the same week,” Obama said. “For in a larger sense, they are both moments of reflection and renewal. They are both occasions to think more deeply about the obligations we have to ourselves and the obligations we have to one another, no matter who we are, where we come from, or what faith we practice.”

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”
—2 Thessalonians 5:3

Syria and Israel this year held four rounds of indirect talks mediated by
Turkey, but the talks made no significant headway.

In Syria Carter is also expected to meet with the exiled leadership of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal. Carter’s first meeting with Meshaal in April drew sharp criticism from the Bush administration which labels Hamas
as a terrorist group.

On Friday, Carter said that he would have been delighted to meet Hezbollah officials and that he regrets the meeting didn’t take place during his current visit to Lebanon.

Carter spent five days talking to top Lebanese leaders and members of parliamentary blocs but didn’t meet with lawmakers from the militant Hezbollah. The Iranian-backed Shiite group is on the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list.

The former U.S. leader had said he was ready to meet Hezbollah but they refuse to meet current or former U.S. presidents.

Carter has offered that his Atlanta-based Carter Center monitor Lebanon’s parliament elections next year. The vote will be fiercely contested between Western-backed anti-Syrian groups that hold majority seats in the current 128-member parliament and a Hezbollah-led coalition supported by Syria and Iran.

During a lecture at the American University of Beirut at the end of his visit Friday, Carter expressed disappointment that Hezbollah refused to see him.

“We came here with the hope that we can meet with all the political parties and factions in Lebanon,” he said. “If the leaders of Hezbollah wanted to meet with me, I would have been delighted.”

Carter also said on Friday he hoped U.S. President-elect Barack Obama would quickly engage in Middle East peace talks when he takes Office.

Carter, president from 1977 to 1981, said Obama had told him he would “begin this effort early in his term.”

“The United States for the last eight years has been basically aloof from negotiations,” Carter said in an address at the American University of Beirut. “My hope is we will see a new movement towards a comprehensive peace in this region.”

Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, Carter helped negotiate a 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Critics say President George W. Bush largely ignored Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking until belatedly launching talks in November 2007.

Carter has been a tough critic of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories, angering many with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

He also caused controversy earlier this year by meeting leaders of the Palestinian faction Hamas, which is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. and the European Union.

Carter said he had no doubts about Obama’s “political courage.” “But I know the tremendous political pressure that exists in my nation among political office holders to comply almost without exception to the policies of the Israeli government,” he said.

Obama’s election was cheered by many Arabs glad to see an end to what they have seen as the Bush administration’s ruinous Middle East policies. But the appointment of pro-Israeli figures in the new administration has tempered initial enthusiasm.

Carter said that while Obama had picked Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and Rahm Emmanuel as White House chief of staff, there was hope in his choice of retired Marine Gen. James Jones as national security advisor.

“As far as Rahm Emmanuel is concerned, yes, he is closely affiliated with Israel… But I think that another hopeful sign is that General Jim Jones will be his national security advisor,” Carter said.

Clinton had “been quite close to AIPAC’s position in the past,” Carter added, in reference to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.

“But I think that Jim Jones is thoroughly familiar with the situation in Palestine,” Carter said. Diplomats say Jones was critical of Israel in a confidential report this year on how Israelis and Palestinians had met security commitments.

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”
—2 Thessalonians 5:3

Saeb Erekat, who is the chief official responsible for overseeing peace negotiations with Israel, said that in a phone call late Tuesday, Obama told Abbas that he would spare no effort to facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, President Shimon Peres said Tuesday that Obama proclaimed himself “very impressed” with the Arab League’s peace plan when the two discussed it during the American president-elect;s brief visit to Israel four months ago.

Peres, who had just arrived in London for an official visit, made the comment in interviews to be published in the British media. He was responding to questions about whether he thought Obama would advance the Middle East peace process in general and the Arab League’s plan in particular.

But he denied a Sunday Times report earlier this week which claimed that Obama had said Israel would be “crazy” to reject the Arab initiative.

On Monday, former American envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, who has been advising Obama on the subject, also denied reports that Obama had said while visiting Israel in July that he supported the Arab initiative and would base his own diplomatic policy on it.

The plan, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive full relations with the entire Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from all the territory it captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, plus a solution to the refugee problem. The Bush Administration has said it views the plan positively, but its own road map peace plan and the understandings reached at last year’s Annapolis summit have served as the basis of its diplomatic program.

Peres said the Arab initiative was “not perfect,” mainly because it fails to address Jewish rights. Nevertheless, he said, it is worth negotiating, alongside the bilateral talks with the Palestinian Authority.

The plan’s big plus, he explained, is that it represents “a sea change” from the famous “three noes” – no peace with Israel, no recognition and no negotiations – of the Khartoum summit in 1967. In addition, he argued, it enables Israel to obtain peace with all the Arab states for the price of an agreement with the Palestinians.

Peres, who said the Arab plan was becoming “serious,” added that he did not think the United States would need to pressure Israel to advance the peace process, since Washington and Jerusalem “see eye to eye” on how to solve the conflict with the Palestinians.

Addressing the issue again during a visit to London’s old City Hall, where he received an honorary doctorate from University College London, Peres claimed that agreement had already been reached with the Palestinians on most issues, and all that remained was to reach a deal on territorial exchanges comprising 4 to 5 percent of the West Bank.

However, he added, Israel must be given guarantees because “in Gaza we failed. We took down 30 settlements by force, and there is not one Israeli citizen or soldier there anymore. But instead of settlements, they’ve built launching sites for missiles. And I have to give an answer to Israelis who are asking: ‘How can we be sure that it won’t happen if we leave more settlements?’”

Discussing negotiations with Syria, Peres noted that both Egypt and Jordan got back all the territory they lost in the Six-Day War by signing peace agreements with Israel, and that “if Syria changes its ways and goes in the direction of Egypt, it knows what it will receive.”

On another issue, Peres lashed out at repeated attempts by British university lecturers to impose an academic boycott on Israel, terming it “hypocritical.”

“Will the academics defend us? Will they defend our children?” he demanded. “Will they defend Sderot, which is being hit by missiles every day?”

Tuesday night, Peres gave a talk on peace and globalization at Oxford University, where he noted that Zionism arose in response to anti-Semitism and racism, but Obama’s election might herald the end of racism. He was periodically interrupted by pro-Palestinian hecklers.

On Wednesday, Peres will address both houses of Parliament, and on Thursday, he will meet with Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Gordon Brown.