As expected
Israel rejects proponents of the Saudi proposal as "totally unacceptable."
- posted by levinson @ 3/27/2002 08:22:00 AM

 
Designed to Fail
The proposal to the Arab League yesterday is designed to fail for two reasons which can be found in the difference between Abdullah's speech and Friedman's Op-ed:

1. Abdullah to Friedman: "full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations[.]"
2. Abdullah yesterday: "[a propoal to the UN] based on normal relationships and security to Israel and parallel with an independent Palestinian country with its capital Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian people to come back to their country."

The second is designed to fail because of the last part of the sentence. "[I]ts capital in Jerusalem." This is not in accord with any UN resolutions. Not now, not ever. Never once has the UN proposed that the capital of Palestine be Jerusalem in part or in whole. The original partition had Jerusalem protected and administered by the UN itself. The Israelis will never relinquish (unless perhaps Barak gets back in power but the Palestinian violence will most likely lead to Netanyahu being elected) Jerusalem totally to the Palestinians. Second, "right of Palestinian people to come back to their country." This has been a bone of contention on which Israel has always been intractable. In their view, the right of return would mean the destruction of Israel. No country would submit to this. These are not new issues and lumping them into the proposal, while not making any ground on peace, accomplishes two objectives for the Saudis alone.

1. They become the moderate peace brokers in the middle east. A position previously held by Egypt, but since Mubarak has not gone to Beirut, the Saudis can claim the peace making initiative uncontested.
2. The proposal gives Palestine everything it ever wanted (aside from the destruction of Israel) and thus firmly plants the Saudis as every bit as hard line as the other members of the Arab League.

The Saudis then posture as peacemakers, but offer nothing substantive. They get lauded in the western press and the Arab press. It will be interesting to see how the western leaders react to the Arab summit especially when the final proposal comes out. Note that the Saudi proposal will be reworked by the League and released after the Summit. That text should be interesting.
- posted by levinson @ 3/27/2002 07:10:00 AM

 
What Clout?
One of the reasons people have paid so much attention to the Saudi "peace proposal" is that the Saudis are looked upon by the west as among the ostensible leaders of the Arab League along with Egypt. That's the west's perspective and the Saudi's deftly exploited that view. As STRATFOR points out, however, several Arab leaders, including heavy hitter Mubarak, are not attending the summit in Beirut. Arafat has also said he won't go because he knows he'll never be let back into Israel. So my question is, why continue to pursue the Saudi idea when it's clear they don't have the clout to persuade the Arab leaders to even discuss the idea? If we know Israel's neighbors don't take the proposal seriously, and Arafat doesn't either, why continue to attempt to broker such a peace? It's folly. Also, are we so foolish as to think that Saddam will allow peace in Israel if we continue to push for that peace prior to invading Iraq?
- posted by levinson @ 3/26/2002 01:06:00 PM

 
4 Secular Questions
A short and important op-ed from Safire today. Makes me think I'm not going insane.

On another note, last week both Newsweek and the New Yorker had pieces on Kurdistan. Two distinctly different pieces. Newsweek's was about hope, while the NYer was about Saddam's gassing of his own people. That we haven't been able to rally support for destoying such a monster boggles the mind and raises an important point about the leaders in the region. To me, the point is that they are deathly afraid of their own people. If that is the case, it means they cannot or do not communicate effectively with their own people. It raises the question of what is being communicated to the citizens of the diverse Arab countries. It would seem to be a message that is uniformly communicated throughout the region regardless of the different cultures contained there. The result of the message seems to be that it is better not to attack Saddam so as not to turn on a fellow Muslim than it is to support the United States. We are very familiar with this kind of thinking in the US and we should use that history to our advantage.

I think I think (to borrow from Peter King) the administration needs to tell the Arab leaders that peace in Israel is not a pre-requisite to deposing Saddam and to stop asking for that condition.

I think a war is coming in Kurdistan in the next ten years. A bad war during which we should align ourselves with the intersts of the people (and for that we need effective intelligence) not with our interests in oil. The Kurds will make a play for either independence or political dominance when Saddam falls, making his toppling that much trickier in the aftermath.
- posted by levinson @ 3/25/2002 07:46:00 AM

 
Annan the Arab Mouthpiece
Op-ed in the Times today by George Fletcher on Annan's mischaracterization of the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza as illegal. He clarifies an earlier blog I had on whether Israel isn't entitled to those lands since they were seized in a war. The Geneva convention did lay out how such territories were to be dealt with.
- posted by levinson @ 3/21/2002 08:53:00 AM

 
Assignment Desk
So here's a question I like to see analyzed in the press. The Palestinians want a state. Okay. Presumably, Arafat would (until he's dead) lead that state. Is there any evidence anywhere in his history that would show him to be capable of effectively (and non-violently) taking on such a charge. Look it's a matter of the welfare of the people who would be citizens of such a state. Given that we know Israel can effectively govern the region, I think this is a serious issue. Unless he can demonstrate (which he's failed to do under the Olso accords) that he and the PA are capable of governing, I see no way to grant Palestine statehood under their leadership. It would be a humanitarian disaster. I have no doubt that there are Palestinians capable of governing effectively and I don't want this to turn into a situation like the Brits had with India. There are capable leaders among the Palestinians now, but Arafat must be shunted aside if the state is ever to (a) be born and (b) survive.
- posted by levinson @ 3/21/2002 08:50:00 AM

 
Word Choice
A quick memory check (if it serves) says that when the report on Clinton/Lewinsky came out a few weeks ago, RepublicanSenateCandidateIndependentCounsel Ray said that there was enough evidence to indict Clinton for perjury. To me this means that they knew they could never win and thus cut the deal with Clinton before he left office. Salon has their own thoughts on the weakness of Ray's actual case. The report on Whitewater comes out now and says that the Clintons could not have been convicted of any criminal activity in Whitewater. But wait, could they have been indicted? Doesn't seem to say. So we know Bill could have been indicted for perjury in Lewinsky, but not convicted of any criminal act in Whitewater? Would the press please elaborate on the IC's parsing of words here? My read? Ray has and had squat to take any legal action. Why else would a $70MM investigation wind up with such a sweetheart deal for Clinton? What a joke.
- posted by levinson @ 3/21/2002 08:33:00 AM

 
Friedman Clarifies
After heartily endorsing the p.r. scheme masked as a peace proposal put forward to him by the Saudi crown prince an earlier op-ed, Friedman today helps to clarify two things:

1. Language is extremely important in discussing this issue, and the Arab League will seek to manipulate that language relentlessly.
2. The Arab League and the Palestinians will never seek to make true peace with Israel under its current leadership.

- posted by levinson @ 3/13/2002 07:15:00 AM

 
Political Life Lesson
James Carville in Salon today with this:

• "Do you think Daschle's been tough enough at this point?
  
  I don't think Daschle ought to be the focus he is. I think the Democratic Party has the chronic problem of appearing to be weak, of not standing and fighting for what it believes in, not fighting for its own. I think that America will not trust a party to defend America that isn't willing to defend itself. And that's basically my message. The Republicans are hard-hitting, ruthless, and we don't have to do everything they do, but we ought to be just as willing to stand up for what's right as they're willing to stand up for what is wrong.
  
  But Democrats don't do that ...
  
  I agree. I think there's a culture in the party that has to change.
  
  There's a great article in the Washington Monthly about that ...
  
  It's wonderful. I called the guy that wrote it and told him he wrote a hell of an article ...
  
  You could have written it.
  
  Well, I couldn't find much of anything to disagree with in it. He points out how a nasty Op-Ed article in the Washington Post can completely paralyze the Democratic Party, and he's right."

Too bad most Democratic politicians are scared to death of Clinton and anyone associated with him. It's almost a mark of Cain as far as I can tell. Hopefully this fall we'll see the party take up some of Carville's ideas and defend itself the way Carville did Clinton.

- posted by levinson @ 3/11/2002 07:25:00 AM

 
Mad-Hatter's Party
Stealing this link from Daily Howler. Somerby points to this as a great example of the press dissecting political spin for once. He also, rightly, notes that this is the kind of thing the 24 media ought to be doing. If the pols and executives (and anyone else with a microphone) are going to give us nothing but spin, why doesn't the media, rather than just regurgitating or enhancing that spin, dissect the facts from the spin? The facts are there for all to see, but most don't have the time to research the facts for themselves. I guess you could say Somerby is calling for the press corps do to some kind of "investigative" reporting. I realize they don't do this, but I think it's a growth area.

My primary thought on the US "lowering our dependence on foreign oil" goes something like this.

• First, why is foreign oil bad? Presumably because it comes from corrupt Arabian regimes that we prop up because they give us oil. But we're not talking about removing the US from the global oil market here, just reducing our intake by a few percentage points. If our foreign intake drops from 57% to 52% (now I'm giving ANWR the benefit of the doubt here to an absurd margin. Here's Grunwald, "The American Petroleum Institute's best-case scenario found that opening the refuge � which would presumably lead to exploration of nearby Native-owned land as well � could supply about 5 percent of the nation's oil consumption." The "best-case" (by the oil people so you can imagine how outlandish the "best" case is) "could" supply "about 5 percent". Want any more qualifiers, how about the "presumably lead to exploration of nearby Native-owned land"? Realistic estimate from a guy who knows nothing of the facts but was reared on political spin? 2%. Reduce our dependence from 57% to 55%. I can see the sheiks quaking from here. But wait, we "may import 67% by 2020." We may do a lot of things in 20 years, but one things for sure, drilling in ANWR will drop that figure to "may import 65% by 2020." I'm convinced.
• Second, what would less foreign oil do for the consumer? Will anyone realize an economic benefit if we import 2% less foreign oil? Do the US companies charge us less for their oil? Do we get a hometown discount? No. They are global corporations. We get the same price as the Japanese and the French. Reducing our "dependence" on foreign oil will have zero effect on the prices of anything in this country.

I'll set the environmental arguments aside since they are unnecessary at this point. You still have to make the case to me that drilling in ANWR is economically or politically sensible. If that argument is effectively made, then we'll talk about the "2000 acre" "footprint". See Krugman for round one on the footprint issue.
- posted by levinson @ 3/07/2002 07:52:00 AM

 
Winning Through Surrendering
Tom Friedman with his distinctly Bernard Lewis sounding theory on Muslim rage. Lewis has also pointed to the possibility that there is distinct inferiority/confusion at the root of the Muslim rage directed at the west. Friedman sums his theory up well, "[h]ow could a tiny Jewish state amass so much military and economic power if the Islamic way of life � not Christianity or Judaism � is God's most ideal religious path?"

Friedman then continues that the west and Israel do need to assist the Muslim world. "But to think that Israel's exiting the occupied territories � and abandoning its insane settlement land grab there � wouldn't reduce this problem is absurd." The problem Friedman cites is one of his own deduction, the beaming of Israel's war with the Palestinians all over the world. Exiting the occupied territories, Friedman feels, would stop this. He notes, "[s]ome of this hatred will remain no matter what Israel does." Right. So Israel pulls out of the occupied territories and the terrorists continue to group themselves inside the West Bank but now without threat of capture by the authorities (because it is clear Arafat promotes their terror network). Now what happens to all the hatred that will never go away? Do they all go to anger management school? Or do they, having succeeded in driving Israel out of the West Bank with terror, then take their terror war to the next level to destroy Israel completely (as Arafat has said, "push them into the sea")?

One final note. There is a lot of talk about the "occupied territories." This line has been allowed to stand since the UN is little more than a microphone for corrupt Arab regimes (see the Saudi representative's comments on the "peace proposal" last week) and they have used that microphone to declare the territories occupied. As Rob pointed out yesterday, Egypt, Jordan and Syria (combined) fought a war against Israel (which they completely surround) and lost those territories in the war. Not only had those three countries amassed troops along Israel's borders, but (and here's the reason the Arabs want them out) those territories were the most strategically advantageous from which to attack the heart of Israel. To take up Friedman again, the rage-filled Arab youth, having forced Israel (using terrorist tactics) to relinquish the strategically powerful land it conquered in a war against the combined Arab powers that physically surround it, will sit on said land do nothing?
- posted by levinson @ 3/06/2002 07:26:00 AM

 
The Saudi Plan
I know that some national papers do read Stratfor. I would like if someone would dispatch one of their top reporters to take this quote to the relevant parties to get reaction as well as do a comprehensive analysis of the quote's meaning historically and currently:

• "The tragic reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it has nothing to do with lack of good will or of creative diplomacy. The essential problem is that the Palestinians can never have what their nationalism requires within the confines of post-1948 geography, nor can Israelis be secure within those borders. The only possible compromise is geopolitically impossible.
  
  Saudi leaders know this. They know that they cannot deliver the Arab world and also that it doesn't matter, since at the final moment, as has happened before, neither side can take the deal being offered and live with it. Riyadh also understands fully that neither the United States nor Europe has grasped that fact -- believing that with more good will and a more creative negotiating framework, all will be well."

- posted by levinson @ 3/05/2002 12:59:00 PM

 
Trickle Down
STRATFOR doesn't seem all that impressed with the Saudi thing either. There are some interesting lines in the story that show an uncharacteristic human side behind the Stratfor briefing. They seem even more shocked than I that the world is fawning over the non-offer.
- posted by levinson @ 3/05/2002 12:40:00 PM

 
As A Bat
One thing I found particularly poignant last fall was the inability of the pundits on either the left or the right to shake themselves away from their sloughs and wake up to what had and was really happening. I don't think they were unwilling, I think they were (and are) unable. I have all but ceased watching any cable news shows as they offer almost nothing but these buffoons fawning over which of them can fly further from reality.

One of the king hatchet-men of the right has lurched back to the left and written about his experience as a right-wing operative. I am undecided on whether I'll read the book as Bernie Goldberg's utter rag has left me weary of the tell-all genre. I have also read articles by Brock himself and reviews such as the one in this week's New Yorker and think I get the gist of what's in the 288 pages.

Despite my aversion to pundits, I took a gander at the customer reviews for Brock's book. The book is to be released tomorrow, but it has already garnered five reviews dating back to August 2, 2001. Truly bn.com attracts incredibly precient readers. Now I don't know if any of these people somehow got their hands on the book so early, but they seem to meet it with either tremendous accolades or stunning vitriol. Aside from torching the book, one reviewer had these thoughts on leftist thinking, "all you have to do is know your history and what you guys think and believe is at one point or another total destruction." What may be most entertaining is looking for reviews from the freepers.
- posted by levinson @ 3/04/2002 02:07:00 PM

 
Swinging Away
Someone in the Democratic dugout has given the sign to swing away. Daschle flat out says the Afghan campaign will fail if we don't capture the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. First Byrd, now Daschle. It appears that the dems have decided they can attack W on all fronts and no longer restrain themselves to the economy alone. The early signs now show that the fall's campaign is going to be a big-time primer for the title fight in 2004, and no one is going to pull punches in their effort to control the legislature. Those are the signs right now, who knows what will happen if the dems can't hit any balls.
- posted by levinson @ 3/01/2002 11:54:00 AM