Washington, D.C. – The following is a statement by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Now that both Turkey and Iran are on the record supporting the violation of another nation’s waters so long as the ships doing so are providing humanitarian relief, a huge impediment to two ideas of mine – the Free Turkey Movement and the Free Iran Movement – has now been lifted.

The main project of both groups would be “Free Minds Flotillas,” collections of ships loaded with sufficient servers and broadcast equipment to ensure that the citizens of Turkey and Iran have full access to Google, YouTube and Facebook.

Both countries have been running blockades of these services. Earlier this week – and with the “Freedom Flotilla” incident still fresh in our minds – Turkey banned YouTube and blocked access to more than 30 Google websites.

Iran permanently suspended Google’s email service this past February and YouTube and Facebook have frequently been filtered or blocked by the Iranian regime.

Unfettered communication between people is a basic human right and people of Turkey and Iran are crying out for the world’s help.

The “Free Minds Flotilla” can now respond now that both Turkey and Iran have given the green light for such operations.

We’ll need substantial funding for these two projects, of course, if we’re to be successful. And it is unlikely we’ll be able to count on the kind of support Weather Underground leaders William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Code Pink founder Jodie Evans and Noam Chomsky provided to the Free Gaza Movement.

But plenty of support should be forthcoming…

To the executives of Google, Facebook, and YouTube: I await your calls.

Note: David A. Ridenour most recently commented on Israel, Gaza, Turkey and the Freedom Flotilla in “Turkey Responsible for Flotilla Deaths” on June 1.

Washington, D.C. – The following is a statement by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research:

The international community should be denouncing Turkey, not Israel, for the loss of life on the so-called “Freedom Flotilla.”

That’s because Turkey, the flag state of the ship, had an obligation to ensure that the ships making up the flotilla adhered to international law.

It didn’t.

Though neither Turkey nor Israel are parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty presumably spells out what the states ratifying the treaty believe to be acceptable rules of behavior. Many of those countries are now, rather hypocritically, denouncing Israel.

The Free Gaza Movement announced its intention to breach Israel’s barricade of Gaza – requiring it to violate Israel’s territorial waters.

Article 19 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that “any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal state” or “the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws or regulations of the coastal state” are deemed “prejudicial to the peace, good order or security” of that state. This flotilla – as with ones before it – would have done both if allowed to proceed.

While Article 19 only gives the coastal state the authority to act within its territorial waters, the bloodshed may well have been greater had Israel waited until then. If reports are accurate that some activists carried arms, Israeli commandos would have lost the element of surprise.

It also appears that Israel may have been within international norms in boarding the ship as all states have an obligation under Articles 109 and 110 of the treaty to stop unauthorized broadcasts (those intended for the general public, but not distress calls), including in international waters. The so-called “Freedom Flotilla” was broadcasting their voyage live.

Blood is on Turkey’s hands.

President Obama should do the right thing and recall the U.S. ambassador.

Note: David A. Ridenour is the author of “Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage.“

The list is endless and this has all taken place within the first four months of his presidency. Wake up America. Our nation has been hijacked by a person now proud to be a Muslim. What should we expect next in his bag of hopenchange tricks?

Yesterday, Netanyahu met for the first time face to face with Barack Obama. The prime minister made it clear that he was willing to begin negotiations for peace with the Palestinians as soon as they were willing to acknowledge and honor Israel’s right to exist. He also would not commit to a two state solution, one he does not want and one that Obama has indicated he wants to see.

On the other side, Obama has a problem both at home and in Israel. More than likely Obama does not have the support at home to promote his agenda with Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestine and basically the entire Middle East. Just as disturbing is the fact that it now appears Israelis overwhelmingly see Barack Obama as anti-Israel. According to the results of a recent poll printed in the Jerusalem Post, only 31% of Israelis view Obama as pro-Israel.

Besides the 31% who labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian and 40% felt he was neutral. The other 15% declined to provide an opinion for the poll

If you are wondering how that compares to former President Bush’s approval of the Israelis, his rating was 88%. It may be that the longer Obama stalls in taking a definitive position, the lower that number may fall.

Even though Barack Obama says he hasn’t taken any options off the table, he appears weak in any attempts he has made to negotiate with Iran and the Arab world in general. Now with Israel not viewing Obama as a friend and the president still clinging to hope that he can negotiate with terrorists, does Obama have any leverage at all?

Pat Buchanan says Netanyahu and Israel really only have three options and none of them look very encouraging.

One option is to annex the West Bank, which Buchanan says would ultimately end up with Israel absorbing a population of Palestinians that in time would outnumber Jews. A second option is basically ethnic cleansing, which I would have to agree with Buchanan, this is something the U.S. could not support.

The third plan is one that seems to be Netanyahu’s option – no Palestinian state and to retain control over the West Bank to make sure that what happened with Hamas in Gaza doesn’t happen there. This plan of course has it’s problems, the biggest being that this would essentially isolate the Palestinians.

Netanyahu understands that Israel is always a target and that as many times as they have tried to negotiate peace and give up territory and yield to the demands of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinians and pressures from the West, they continue to be shot at, grenades launched into settlements, car bombed and rockets fired at them.

When you have never spent everyday of your existence wondering who will be killed by a terrorist today, it is easy to suggest concessions for peace. I suggest that Netanyahu and the Israeli people have a much better understanding of reality than Barack Obama who believes in negotiating with those who want to kill Jews and Americans.

So we are still left with the big question. Where will the United States come down on the issue of protecting Israel from those bent on her destruction? It is believed that Barack Obama will announce to the world those plans in a speech scheduled for June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt. Mark that day on your calendar. It could be one of the biggest days in world history.

Tom Remington

Threats made of an attack against Iran to stop its nuclear weapons ambitions are nothing new. Much of this has been going on since 2002 but so far it has been all talk and no action. Iran still claims its nuclear development is only for peaceful purposes and for the creation of nuclear powered electricity. This action by Iran only brings the notion closer to reality that an attack may be eminent.

Iran has supposedly notified many of its Arab neighbors that they have deployed the missiles but they are not targeted at them, however, Iran has many times threatened that if their state is attacked, they will shut down the Strait of Hurmuz, crippling the world’s supply of crude oil and natural gas. This would draw the ire of much of the world against such a move.

It is interesting and leaves many people wondering if this bold move by Iran is being done because it perceives the Obama administration weak in its resolve to protect Israel and stand firm against any aggression aimed at Israel and the Middle East. We know that President Obama has tried to upon up communications with Iran and Syria and some see this move without preconditions as weak and foolhardy.

Israel and the United States have repeatedly said they cannot allow Iran to obtain or build nuclear weapons. The question still remains, what are they prepared to do to stop them. Iran must consider the threat enough to now deploy its mobile missiles into the Strait of Hurmuz.

Tom Remington

It seems that no longer are we questioning whether North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is becoming common enough that it is now assumed that North Korea is armed and we aren’t questioning if they will use the weapons but when.

From Fox News today:

Now North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Il, has the potential to kill millions in Japan as well as the South, and to lay waste U.S. bases and airfields in both countries. It will force military strategists to rethink plans for war in Korea and significantly increase the potential costs of any intervention in a future Korean war. The shift from acknowledging North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program to recognizing it as a fully fledged nuclear power is highly controversial. South Korea, in particular, resists the reclassification because it could give the North greater leverage in negotiations.

While eyes seemed to be focused in the United States on matters at home, we seem to have forgotten much of what else is going on in the world. Yesterday Third Lens writer, Steve Remington, snapped us back to attention, if only briefly, that Russia had broken its peace agreement and had moved its military machine back into Georgia on a march to reclaim South Ossetia. This would give Russia power and control over the movement of oil and natural gas into the rest of Europe.

On another front, Taliban forces in Pakistan moved that much closer to the capital bringing radical forces, who many believe have the objective of capturing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, to within about 60 miles of those weapons.

Oddly enough though, after capturing nearby Buner, and setting up command headquarters, Taliban troops began pulling back today, apparently after brokering some kind of agreement with the Pakistan government or perhaps actually fearing the government’s claim that it would forcibly remove them from the area.

According to an AP report on Fox News, few think the Taliban is content to fall back and wait there.

The government agreed in February to impose Islamic law in Swat and surrounding areas of the northwest in return for a cease-fire that halted nearly two years of bloody fighting between militants and Pakistani security forces.

But hard-liners have seized on the concession to demand Islamic law, or Sharia, across the country, and the Swat Taliban have used it to justify a push into Buner, putting them within striking distance of the capital and key roads leading to the main northwestern city of Peshawar.

As the global balance of power shifts, the rest of the world is left wondering what can be done? Are we prepared to take action to stop this movement by radicals to gain power through nuclear weapons?

During the visit, Jiechi encouraged Israel to begin negotiating with the Palestinians and that China supported the peace plan of giving up more land to the Palestinians. In addition to negotiating with the Palestinians, Jiechi encouraged Israel to open up talks with Syria and Lebanon.

It appears that Shimon Peres is trying to convince China that there may be more at stake in this nuclear arms debate concerning Iran than China might be willing to admit. According to today’s Jerusalem Post, Israel is prepared to tell China that if Iran doesn’t back off from developing nuclear weapons and a military conflict erupts between Israel and Iran, China’s growing demand of oil, much of what it buys from Iran, may be in jeopardy.

The Jerusalem Post has learned that Israeli officials were planning to tell him that China’s oil and natural gas imports from Iran could be jeopardized in the future if pressure does not increase on the Islamic republic to cease its nuclear program and a military confrontation ensues.

During his stay, Israeli diplomats will argue that a more proactive stance on China’s part to pressure Iran will serve Beijing’s interests, by helping to avert a military conflict, thus safeguarding an important energy source for the growing and energy-hungry Chinese economy.

Jiechi will be urged by officials in Jerusalem to up the ante in the campaign to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear development work.

As China grows and develops it has made no bones about the fact they need oil and will do most anything to continue their supply lines to get it. We have often speculated what role China would play in the unrest in the Middle East. A few years ago it might have been a stretch to believe that China would have such an enormous demand for oil and natural gas. Welcome to the high stakes of using oil for leverage.

It is safe to say that China is now well vested in Middle East affairs.

Tom Remington