Whither Palestine?
The general Arab line on the Question of Palestine goes like this, "The conflict must be settled in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 and 338; the total withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories; and the creation of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital." Here's the thing, neither of those resolutions calls for the creation of a Palestinian state. They don't mention Palestine at all. It's important because the spin on the statement is to get people to believe that the UN has, in those resolutions, called for the creation of Palestine. Now, the UN has said that both a Jewish and Arab state must be created in Palestine, "the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem." Notice that Jerusalem is separate here. It was intended to be a UN zone that not belong to either state. "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." The call for a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem is in violation of this UN resolution. The point is that the more one looks at the "proposal" and actions and statements of the Saudis, the less legitimate the proposal becomes.
- posted by levinson @ 2/28/2002 08:52:00 AM

 
Belaboring
Looking at the minutes of the meeting that was reported in Ha'aretz. Now I was skeptical of the Saudi position as presented in the Friedman article, but if you wonder why there's so much difficulty reaching peace in the Middle East, check out Yemen's statement:

"The continuation by the Israeli Government of its bloody military campaign had led to an escalation in the number of victims and injured among the Palestinian people, and damage to infrastructures and structures of the Palestinian Authority. Israel continued an inhuman blockade, preventing Palestinians from moving in freedom. The Government of Israel should shoulder all responsibilities for its violations of human rights and the crimes and terrorism it committed against the Palestinian people, in violation of international humanitarian law."

Looks like everyone over there is ready to hug the Israelis doesn't it?
- posted by levinson @ 2/28/2002 08:28:00 AM

 
Yeah.... about that peace proposal....
Well, in their moment to formally present a peace proposal to the UN, the Saudis took a decidedly different tone that seems to have gone unreported in our newspapers. The Saudi representative framed the "proposal" as both a demand to and an attack on Israel. Quoting the Ha'aretz account of the speech, "the Saudi envoy made only one reference to Abdullah's proposal, reiterating the demands for a complete Israeli pullout and offering peace and 'good neighborly relations' in return - but he never mentioned recognition of the Jewish state." This doesn't sound quite like the tone they were advancing to Friedman a couple of weeks ago. Now here's a direct quote from the speech that certainly sounds like the Saudis are looking not only for peace, but to normalize relations as quickly as possible, "[t]he objective of Israel was and remains to expel the Arab people from Palestine and to occupy even more Palestinian territory in order to set up an exclusive state."

More? "Israel has no desire for peace, no desire to settle the Middle East problem or to implement resolutions, and thus it drags the international community into a vicious circle of security considerations to prevent it from considering the very essence and substance of the Middle East which lies in Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands."

Shimon Peres supports exploration of the "proposal" (remember it has not been formally made to anyone, while Yuval Steinitz (head of the Likud party which currently controls the government and promoted Sharon for Prime Minister) took a more catious [and I think realistic] tack, "[w]e are hearing only that which we are excited about hearing - the word 'normalization' - and it's about time, after ten years of the 'peace festival,' for which Mr. Peres is responsible, that we stop because the Saudis cannot guarantee that the Palestinians will not import anti-aircraft missles or Iranian artillery into the territories." The world is rushing to take up the Saudis on a proposal they haven't made and no one is sure they can actually deliver. Remember, the Saudis can only suggest that the other Arab states follow their lead and they don't have the same level of involvement in this issue as some of Israel's neighbors. As the Saudis further play out their position, it seems that the pessimists were correct at first when they suggested that the initiative was nothing more than an attempt to mollify the world given that their country produced the majority of the hijackers for Sept. 11. I remain skeptical both of the proposal and Saudi Arabia's ability to deliver (if it were accepted) on any of the terms (for their country or others) that the Arab states would have to accept.
- posted by levinson @ 2/28/2002 08:16:00 AM

 
Blog and You Shall...
Looks like some people are addressing our difficulty in prosecuting the action in Afghanistan to date and our failure to capture or even locate the men we went their to find. Robert Byrd and others took aim at the bloated Defense budget. I'm not saying we don't still need the Joint Strike Fighter, but I think some serious questions need to be asked about the cost of its development. It's one example and I'm glad that the legislature is finally starting to ask some tougher questions of the executive.
- posted by levinson @ 2/28/2002 07:54:00 AM

 
Relax
I'm sorry, but this is embarassing to me. Human cloning is an inevitability in almost all its forms. Any type of "ban" will not be followed or enforced. If our country wants to ban it, that's our business, but a global proposal is just silly. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a big fan of cloning.
- posted by levinson @ 2/27/2002 10:58:00 AM

 
DING DONG!
I just like these new owners more and more as I hear them and read about them. This was inevitable but it's always nice when the hammer actually falls.
- posted by levinson @ 2/27/2002 08:58:00 AM

 
Belaboring...
One issue that had troubled me was that the initiative floated in the Times came from Saudi Arabia and said only that Saudi Arabia would fully normalize relations with Israel if this proposal were accepted. There are some issues that aren't addressed in the article and there has, of course, been no formal proposal:


- posted by levinson @ 2/27/2002 08:05:00 AM

 
Your Move, Arabia
It would seem we have received the Iraeli response to the Friedman op-ed. This lays out well the situation Israel has been dealing with while the rest of the world wonders if Israel will, "Take a Chance" on peace. Dore Gold raises the interesting issue of the 1967 borders. Israel was attacked from those borders in '67. That is routed its attackers and established positions on those borders does not mean it should have to open itself up to another attack by relinquishing its strategic safety. This factor and the always dependable Arafat should shut down the Saudi initiative within a month or two.
- posted by levinson @ 2/27/2002 07:58:00 AM

 
The Pen Just Might Be Mightier
Thom Friedman on the possible futures of Saudi Arabia. The parallels are intersting in both cases (though seem more like the Soviet model than the China model) but I tend to doubt that Saudi Arabia's future will look particularly like either China or the Soviet Union. One major reason is that the western world has a desire (justified or not) to see the country stay afloat. A total collapse is not in the interest of the western powers and they will act accordingly to keep it afloat. Nothing and I do mean nothing will be allowed to stop oil (regardless of how replaceable the supply is) from flowing out of that desert.

Can you imagine the accolades Friedman will receive if Israel and the Arab world really do sort out their differences. Already he's written the most important international story of the year (his Op-ed on the Saudi proposal for peace) and that one missive could have greater lasting effects in the world than any press report that I can recall. I think he deserves a Pulitzer for the piece, but I don't think it will lead anywhere. I am supremely confident that Arafat will once again skuttle any deal no matter how logical it is.
- posted by levinson @ 2/27/2002 07:44:00 AM

 
Still Wanted: Dead or Alive
A pull-no-punches analysis of the current situation with the war on terrorism. Or, rather, the war in Afghanistan the we no longer want to talk about since we can't seem to find the men we're there to kill. I mean, any of them. The question is, does anyone else in the media or government have the stones to point this out and call a spade a spade. We went there to kill al Qaeda's and the Taliban's leadership. We haven't done that. Bin Laden may be on the run or in hiding, but he doesn't plan these things so much as finance them and act as a spiritual leader. The 9/11 attacks were hatched in a small apartment in Hamburg and other places in the western world. Bin Laden added the key element of money and connections that made the mission impossible without. He can still provide those to a small group of fanatics anywhere in the world. We've frozen assets, but we don't know if their bin Laden's or someone else's. We don't know where his money is. They're no longer in power in Afghanistan and that is important. We have not "smoke[d] them out." Moreover, there are a few countries that would hide bin Laden, accept his money and talent as a construction engineer (as Sudan did) as compensation. This is a very significant issue and is a major failing in our current military action. We've come up short in Afghanistan and don't have enough weapons to go into Iraq for about a year. Hopefully someone will start investigating these issues soon because they're not going away and are only going to get worse.
- posted by levinson @ 2/26/2002 09:31:00 AM

 
New Baby
Jess's brother and sister-in-law had a beautiful 8 lbs. baby on early Saturday morning. His name is Riley and he is the picture of health and extremely mellow. He took his time being born and barely woke up the next day, so he seems very comfortable in both his old and new environment.
- posted by levinson @ 2/25/2002 05:45:00 PM

 
Further Bewildered
I am becoming rapidly convinced that either I'm a fool or I can see and the rest of the world wears bifocals. Check out this Slate "Breakfast Table" with Chris Matthews and Maggie Carlson. Matthews isn't convinced that we should attack Iraq and points to the Wash. Post report that we're plum out of materials. Can't wait for the defense hawks to argue for yet even more defense funding because of it. Matthews makes some interesting points that strike me as tremendously short-sighted (or rather short-minded) given out recent history in prosecuting military action that (we were told) would turn the world (Arab or otherwise) against us. I do not discount his point entirely because it is important to keep in mind that we must wage a propaganda war at the same time (and in between) any military action.

Later in the "talk" Matthews pens, "[t]o get through this, Israel needs to find something a strategic majority of the Palestinians wants bad enough to go for peace." Again I ask why it is that Israel must be the one to bend over backwards to appease terrorists? If, in rejecting the offers from Barak, the Palestinians did not see a reason to oust Arafat before, why are people convinced that some other proposal will cause either the populace or Arafat himself to take action? In my opinion, Sharon's falling numbers are not because he has failed to make peace with Arafat, but because he has failed to take decisive action (violent or otherwise) to deal with the Palestinians. For some reason (or perhaps because I have yet to be properly shown the reasons) people are blind to an even-handed analysis of the facts. Soldiering on in the Lewis book trying to untangle what happened over there and I've flipped through some of Edward Said's books and I think I'll start with "The Palestinian Question" but I am wary of his (or anyone's) justifications for one side or the other given his proximity to the conflict. Nonetheless, he is the one who brought the issue of Palestine to America and needs to be given his due measure.
- posted by levinson @ 2/25/2002 05:42:00 PM

 
Since I Know It's on Everyone's Mind
Speaking of the winter months dragging on, I had a revelation either last night or the day before (I guess my lack of knowing when it happened makes it less than a revelation, or does the obscurity make it more of one?) on why winter sucks so much. We "fall back" on the clock in late October (the 27th this year). Now this is fairly close to the shortest day of the year (Dec. 21) and everyone knows that the shitty, short days are upon us during the winter anyway. Leading up to the new year and part of january, everyone is still taking it pretty much in stride. Come Feb. however, the shit hits the fan. No one can really deal with the fact that Spring and evening light are so far away. Everyone gets stir crazy and depressed. We "Spring Forward" in early April (the 7th this year). That's 15 weeks after the shortest day of the year. We spend 8 weeks running up to the shortest day, and 15 running away. It's like diving in the shallow end and walking out the deep end. No one in their right mind woud do it this way. Why not push the "Spring Forward" time to 8 weeks after the shortest day of the year (Feb. 21) or thereabouts? Since the convention was started to preserve gas, oil and the like during the World Wars and just got kept around, we can monkey with it as much as we like. And don't be fooled by the whole, "it's for the farmers" thing, they hate the time changes.
- posted by levinson @ 2/21/2002 01:48:00 PM

 
Head Scratching
My main interest in the middle east is that I understand it so poorly. It's the center of major world conflicts that we are constantly told are so old and intertwined that no one can figure them out. I reject this, perhaps foolishly. I know that no report of the situation is entirely trustworthy, though I have found Bernard Lewis to be very straightforward. Interestingly, Lewis either is, or was, disdained by almost all of his colleagues because he refused to see that the Palestinians were not the continuing victims in Israel. Edward Said, the chief academic in favor of Palestine, is the one the establishment seems to favor and anyone opposing his views is seen as not credible. Further, Said is Palestinian and fled the country as a twelve-year-old before attending some of America's best high schools and colleges. A logical look would tend to say the Said, while a good resource, might have views that are non-objective on the matter of Palestinian rights. Shockingly [just kidding] no one in academia seems to feel the same. The Newsweek that covered the Bible and the Koran has a sidebar on this.

That being said, we have an op-ed in today's NY Times by Henry Siegman. He takes up the issue of the Arab League recognizing Israel, normalizing relations and opening trade barriers brought to light by Thomas Friedman on Sunday. The title of the op-ed is "Will Israel Take a Chance?" A misnomer. It should read, "Will Israel Take Another In a Strain of So Many that We've all Stopped Counting Chance?" Siegman paraphrasing Friedman paraphrasing Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, "[h]e replied that if Israel were to conclude a peace treaty with the Palestinians that is seen as just, Saudi Arabia would have no problem establishing normal ties with Israel." If Israel would just negotiate peace with a terrorist who is continually using the terrorist arms (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others) of his organization (the PLO) and is now asking for and getting help from Al Qaeda (remember them?) and who has repeatedly walked away from (Camp David with Barak and Clinton) and broken (Oslo Accords in 1993) previous chances taken by Israel, then Saudi Arabia would have no problem establishing normal ties with Israel IF the treaty is seen as just by the Saudis. Given these circumstances, Siegman is surprised that, "this latest development seems to have been greeted with a yawn by the Israeli government." And Siegman is in Israel right now. This is why I'm fascinated with the middle east. To me, Israel isn't the one who needs to take a chance (or perhaps they should take a real one and "deal" with Arafat), rather it's the Palestinians themselves who need to take one and call for new and legitimate leadership. Don't expect peace if you put up a leader who is known liar, criminal and terrorist who has yet to ever negotiate in good faith. But again, maybe I'm missing something, so I read on.....
- posted by levinson @ 2/21/2002 08:09:00 AM

 
Maybe It's Me
Okay, so the Pats win the Superbowl in one of the greatest upsets in sports history. [This feat was topped yesterday by Belarus in a truly astonishing upset the likes of which the world has not seen in 20 years. However, I will give no quarter to one who speaks of that victory being a greater upset than the Miracle on Ice. Belarus shocked the world in much the way the Pats did. It was an upset. It was not a Miracle. There's a huge difference. Perhaps more on this later.] I have officially turned in my membership card for the Fellowship of the Miserable. I will later post my official resignation from the fellowship, but I informally left on Sunday, February 3, 2002. 16 years of misery are over and I have turned the page. [For a great retrospective on the misery, see Bill Simmons's tremendous account of the game.]
It seems, however, that the Boston sports media just can't get out of the funk. They're down in spring training to cover the Sox. The Sox finished abysmally last season in terms of teamwork and dedication; the two virtues that most led the Pats to being World Champions. Pitchers and catchers reported as expected and Pedro showed up on time (which he usually doesn't do) looking healthy and happy. The rest of the team was supposed (though it's not reported who sent down this directive) to be there yesterday. Manny Ramirez wasn't. Everyone else was there. "Oh," you say. Me too. No fewer than SIX count 'em, six stories in Boston's two papers on Manny's "absence." [Here's one.] It turns out that he doesn't contractually have to be there until Feb. 26. He has not missed a formal workout, nor is he outside his contractual obligation. Team manager Kerrigan said as much and no one reports anyone being all that concerned. Doesn't this seem more like a footnote on some beat-writer's "Notes" section? New team president Luchino astutely pointed out that the media is "making a tempest in a teapot here." Good point Larry. Get used to it, because the media in Boston are the hardest nuts to crack and like nothing more than to rake any muck there is, and even much that isn't. I hope the new owners do well, and I think they will, but clearly at this date, their optimism is in no way matched by the people who write about them for us.
- posted by levinson @ 2/21/2002 07:25:00 AM

 
All right. My unannounced, indefinite vacation is over. Many issues over the past month have caught my eye as I sipped boat drinks and eyed the girls sunning themselves. The Pats winning the Superbowl (don't do enough sports here). W's state of the union address. The befuddling fact that Arafat is still (a) in power and (b) alive. Campaign finance passing the House. Many topics gone by and one (the Pats) that I will take up later. The winning topic that has this morning brought me back to railing at the servants is in today's NY Times:

"An ad hoc group of librarians, bookstore owners, educators and others has quietly hatched a plan to turn New York City into a giant reading group." I love the idea of New York engaging in the same practice that Chicago did a year ago. I think it's a wonderful way for those that are so inclined to engage in a kind of civic activity. The naysayers? Let's listen to a few, shall we?

• "We are not quite sure we should go with `Native Speaker.' I certainly want to finish reading it before I can say anything, to see if there is anything derogatory toward Korean-Americans or Asians at this point."
• "I don't like these mass reading bees," said Harold Bloom, unofficial custodian of the literary canon, professor at Yale and part-time New Yorker. He said reading was too private an experience for such municipal orchestration. "It is rather like the idea that we are all going to pop out and eat Chicken McNuggets or something else horrid at once."
• Phillip Lopate, an essayist and editor of the anthology "Writing New York," said the temptation to promulgate salutary values with a citywide book was fundamentally at odds with the promotion of "great literature," and resembled a kind of groupthink. "It is a little like a science fiction plot � `Invasion of the Body Snatchers' or something."

Praise to the Times for both finding and asking these ninnies what they think. That the first ninny listed here is on the committee is disturbing and makes me wonder just why the committee is doing what it's doing. I suspect it is not for the reasons a rube like me thinks it is. Why shy away from a book because it is potentially offensive? Does it seem to anyone else that only in the height of freaky-left political correctness can an immigrant American-Korean write a book and have it be offensive to ... American-Koreans? Also, since the committee is hoping to get 11th and 12th graders to read the book next year, they want to screen the books to make sure the language isn't too rough. Yes that's right, the committee is worried that 16-18 year-olds in New York City might encounter some rough language. In what cave does this committee live? Finally, the committee member list at the top of my UL said that she wants to finish the book before making her decision. Makes sense, except that her reason for wanting to finish is to make sure there's nothing offensive in the book. Everything's fine up to where she stopped reading last night, but she's holding out her opinion just in case a character goes on a profanity-racist-anti-semitic laced tyraid for a chapter or three to end the novel. Wouldn't a book that is potentially offensive be good? Controversy might spark (hold on to your hats) conversation amongst those reading the book. They don't want anything that might be offensive. They're not sure and nothing they read was offensive to them, but in true freaky-leftiness they're on the lookout for anything that might offend anyone. It is better to rule out 100 books than to have one reader be offended. Does this attitude of looking out for the goodness and purity of all minds (be they juvenile or otherwise) strike anyone else as being an element more usually associated with the wacky-right? The politics of forming a centrist party that chops off the gangrenous ends of each party is a subject for another day.

Just pick a book already. Few if any will read it, and those that are so inclined will surely find something about which to be offended.
- posted by levinson @ 2/19/2002 07:55:00 AM