The widely reported water sharing agreement this week between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority to link the Red Sea and the Dead Sea has implications over and above the potential increase to agricultural and drinking water resources -- if we don't blow it.
And despite the Israel-Hezbollah War in 2006, two wars between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, continued rocket fire, and worldwide conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, our women's group in Akko continues to meet -- an accomplishment in itself.
The new ideological polarity in the Middle East may no longer be between Iran and everybody else. It is now more about looking backward or forward in shaping future governance. In fact, the major new polarity may now be between two erstwhile US allies -- Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Israel has made it clear that it is skeptical about the agreement and will not hesitate to attack Iran if necessary, and so on the face of it this might seem like a hindrance to peace being achieved. But when examined from a tactical perspective, Israel's stance may actually help the deal succeed.
I invite you to read the latest excerpt from my mystery, The Watchman's File, specially featured on Amazon's Kindle this week. It's the gripping tale ...
There are two routes on the table for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The American route is the recent Geneva agreement to start a diplomatic...
When the wrangling over Iran's nuclear capabilities began a few decades ago, in a very different geopolitical landscape, it may have made sense for the U.S. to play helicopter parent. However, that time has passed.
As the Turkish experience shows, democracy is a messy process with a steep learning curve. It sometimes can seem like too much to ask of both governments and the governed to have patience to learn the difference between legitimate democratic opposition and rebellion; enforcement and oppression.
If Congress takes matters into its own hands, and violates both the letter and spirit of the agreement, in order to score political points with hard-liners in the United States, they will also be breaking an agreement negotiated with the international community.
If there is any chance at all that new sanctions right now might disrupt that agreement, or jeopardize a future agreement -- why on earth would we risk it?
TWITTER: @GreenNewsReport FACEBOOK: Green News Report The 'GNR' is also now available on your cell phone via Stitcher Radio's mobile app! IN TODAY'S ...
I am not a member of, nor do I support, the Israeli lobby in Washington, but Iran's flat refusal to recognize Israel or "change its stance" disappoints all of us who hope for some sort of peace in the Middle East and some accommodation between the countries existing there.
The slogan: "the cradle of civilization," is often used to promote travel to ancient places, but nowhere is the term more fitting than here.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is obligated to do what he thinks is in the best interests of Israel. President Obama is obligated to act in the best interests of the United States of America. Only history will tell us if those two sets of interests really diverge.
If the Obama administration feels that there is even a faint chance to reach a lasting agreement with Iran, President Obama can improve the odds by insisting on a few conditions and satisfy itself and its allies that it has done all it could to prevent the military option.
It appears that Fethullah Gülen, a U.S.-based Islamic preacher from Turkey who promotes peace and tolerance, and the schools associated with his religious Hizmet movement can't get a break.