Robert Fisk Perspective

Here's an article by Robert Fisk about the peace talks in Annapolis (the original can be found here):

Haven't we been here before? Isn't Annapolis just a repeat of the White House lawn and the Oslo agreement, a series of pious claims and promises in which two weak men, Messrs Abbas and Olmert, even use the same words of Oslo.

"It is time for the cycle of blood, violence and occupation to end," the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Tuesday. But don't I remember Yitzhak Rabin saying on the White House lawn that, "it is time for the cycle of blood... to end"?

Jerusalem and its place as a Palestinian and Israeli capital isn't there. And if Israel receives acknowledgement that it is indeed an Israeli state – and in reality, of course, it is – there can be no "right of return" for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled (or whose families fled) what became Israel in 1948.

And what am I to make of the following quotation from the full text of the joint document: "The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations (sic) teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party." Come again?

We went through all these steering committees before – and they never worked. True we've got a date of 12 December for the first session of this so-called "steering committee" and we have the faint hope from Mr Bush, embroidered, of course, with all the usual self-confidence, that we're going to have an agreement by 2008. But how can the Palestinians have a state without a capital in Jerusalem? How can they have a state when their entire territory has been chopped up and divided by Jewish settlements and the settler roads and, in parts, by a massive war?

Yes of course, we all want an end to bloodshed in the Middle East but the Americans are going to need Syria and Iran to support this – or at least Syrian support to control Hamas – and what do we get? Bush continues to threaten Iran and Bush tells Syria in Annapolis that it must keep clear of Lebanese elections, or else...

Yes, Hizbollah is a surrogate of Iran and is playing a leading role in the opposition to the government of Lebanon. Do Bush and Condoleezza Rice (or Abbas or Olmert for that matter) really think they're going to have a free ride for a year without the full involvement of every party in the region? More than half of the Palestinians under occupation are under the control of Hamas.

Reading the speeches – especially the joint document – it seems like an exercise in self-delusion. The Middle East is currently a hell disaster and the President of the United States thinks he is going to produce the crown jewels from a cabinet and forget Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran – and Pakistan, for that matter. The worst element of the whole Annapolis shindig is that once again millions of people across the Middle East – Muslims, Jews and Christians – will believe all this and will then turn – after its failure – with fury on their antagonists for breaking these agreements.

For more than two years, the Saudis have been offering Israel security and recognition by Arab states in return for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories. What was wrong with that? Mr Olmert promised that "negotiations will address all the issues which thus far has been evaded". Yet the phrase "withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories" simply doesn't exist in the text.

Like most people who live in the Middle East, I would like to enjoy these dreams and believe they are true. But they are not. Wait for the end of 2008.

It's That Time Again!

This is the typical presidential chronology: The first term is the time for pushing, ever so softly, your pet initiatives while the populace is still somewhat entranced by the idea of a new president. The last half of the first term is the time to make the electoral rounds, trumpeting triumphs while glossing over mistakes. The second term is the time to set about creating a legacy by pushing the bold initiatives you aren't scared to champion now that the election is behind you. After seven years in office, when all your political capital is long gone, it is at last time to try your luck in the Middle East. It is time to try and facilitate peace between the Israeli's and Palestinian's.

I say facilitate because no American president would actually want to get their hands dirty creating peace. This is especially true with Mr. Bush. Seven years of inadequate attention to one of the most urgent conflicts in the world is about to be made right tomorrow by a little flesh pressing in Annapolis, and it won't do a thing.

While Mr. Bush's cool detachment may seem like another typical example of the Bush administrations unwillingness to confront and deal with the real problems of the world, the legacy of U.S. policy in the region has not been much better. There has been a consistent unwillingness to address the real issues in the region for years now, for reasons having to do with the special U.S.-Israeli relationship. The U.S. prefers Israel over Israeli security (more on that below) and especially over the Palestinians. But the Israel that the U.S. prefers has been downright disgraceful in dealing with the historical inheritors of the land their state is set upon.

Here are the facts. Israel has been unlawfully colonizing the occupied territories since 1967, all in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions and numerous U.N. resolutions. Israel is holding thousands of Palestinian prisoners, some held without charge, many convicted in unlawful courts (see here). These prisons have been lambasted by human rights organizations the world over. Israel has created a virtual prison of Gaza, and has been unlawfully controlling the flow of people and goods throughout the occupied territories with roadblocks and checkpoints. Israel is building an illegal (recognized as illegal by both international and Israeli courts) wall under the pretenses of security. The wall is in fact a deliberate attempt to cut through Palestinian territory, thereby creating a situation where once contiguous land claims are balkanized, making it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state. Countlessly more Palestinians have been killed by Israeli's than the other way around. The Israeli army has tanks and gunships, the palestinians have crude rockets, rocks, and bombs. In The Battle of Algiers, a leader of the FLN (a group fighting for Algerian independence), Mr. Ben M'Hidi, is asked by a reporter at a press conference whether it is cowardly to kill civilians with bombs hidden in baskets. Mr. Ben M'Hidi reminds the reporter of French atrocities against Algerians, and then replies that "of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.” That response is directly analogous to the situation in Palestine.

All of this is according to plan for the historically hawkish Israeli government, who have consistently chosen, with tacit U.S. support, as Noam Chomsky puts it, "expansion over security". The Israeli government is one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid, mostly military, of any country in the world. The U.S. has leverage but the policy has been to not even talk about using it.

There is little hope for the situation to get equitable with a new president, be he/she democrat or republican. The one foreign policy point that every single major candidate agrees on is that Israel ought to be supported, right or wrong.

To convince the public of the validity of such unequivocal support of Israel, most politicians, as well as media outlets, are incredibly good at shifting the debate onto pro-Israel terms. Instead of a dialog based on the presupposition that Israel must adhere to U.N. resolutions 242 - which demands an Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied during the six day war in 1967 - as well as all other U.N. resolutions, the debate is based upon vague demands such as Palestinians must renounce violence and except Israel as a "Jewish state". That sort of debate is what I will call a Security First debate. Nancy Pelosi - liberal democrat, San Francisco - as well as most American politicians, is a firm believer in "security first," a presupposition that is not only fairly impossible to gauge if it has been met, but also one which can shift, change, morph, at the whims of the one defining what "security" means. In other words it's just diplomatic claptrap meant to stall any real peace agreement that might put an end to the suffering felt by the Palestinians.

This brings us back to where we started, with Bush finally getting around to bringing peace upon the Middle East after his Iraq expedition got all fucked up. What Condoleezza is proposing is nothing new. The U.S. still refuses to use leverage to get Israel to meet Palestinians on fair terms. What it seems this will turn into is just one more piece of evidence for the Security Firsters. I can here it now: Israel tried its best to create peace. They came all the way from the Middle East to work things out but the ungrateful Palestinian delegation is just unable to deliver on Israel's modest preconditions for peace talks. All Israel demands is that Abbas makes sure that angry Palestinians won't hurt Israel as it continues to flaunt every U.N. resolution on the books as well as the Geneva Conventions.

I fear it won't be long before presidents give up on the pretenses of trying to bring peace to the Middle East, and instead just bow out early so they can spend more time sprucing up their legacy filled presidential libraries.

Is This Funny?

Mitt Romney has put together a campaign video summing up the vapid and dishonest nature of the Republican party as a whole. Enjoy!

Kindle Me Not

Amazon.com just released a new e-book reader called the Kindle. The name seems to try and invoke emotions of warmth and coziness, but don't let that disarm suspicion. It is a device more tethered to Amazon than any iPod is to Apple, and I don't think that is a good thing.

An electronic e-book reader is a great idea in many ways. Firstly it does not require paper, a good thing for the environment, especially if this little plastic device can last longer than an iPod. Secondly, it could rekindle the flagging newspaper business, offering a new revenue outlet for the struggling newsmen by jiving with the tech savvy sensibilities of the 21st century crowd. Lastly, from what I can tell, the Kindle is damn convenient. It is completely wireless, allowing you to browse the amazon bookstore wherever you are and download a book, magazine, or blog for a reasonable price in about a minute. 

There is a downside to the modern book. People used to go to the theatre, now they sit alone in a home theatre. Music used to be exclusively heard in a social space, now we are walled in by tiny white earbuds. Reading used to involve going to bookstores to touch and feel your way towards your next read. A book used to be shareable; it could be borrowed by friends and enjoyed alike. 

The Kindle is mediated by Amazon.com. The books are proprietary and fleetingly digital. Call me a luddite, but I am somewhat uncomfortable with the specter of Amazons new product. The most unnerving thing about it is its insularity. By being exclusively chained to Amazon to do anything, a Kindle owner is forced to surrender to the will of Amazon, unless he/she would like to see their $400 device sit lifeless. I know there is nothing sinister going on here, Amazon just wants to make money. But do we really want to find ourselves once again as the cash cow, especially when we have no other choice but to buy from one company?

The next part is a rant: 

The Kindle is just one more example of how those who wish to make a buck have successfully gained the upper hand in the battle for our minds. Ok, sure, that sounds a little hyperbolic, but hear me out. 

We are at a point in human history where it has become both exceedingly easy and very difficult to make people internalize ideas, values, and beliefs. At the same time we have both a plethora of information and resources to educate ourselves with as well as giant institutions that work every day to have us think and behave in certain ways so that we will consume their merchandise. A survey of society would probably tell us that the institutions are winning. They win by consolidating what we experience. The mass media has successfully done this. 

The book is one of the last holdouts in this push towards consolidation. Sure, there are retailers like Wal-Mart that have done a great job controlling what books their customers may buy or see. When Wal-Mart is the only store in your community then you have been successfully monopolized and your thoughts and actions are well on their way to being consolidated for profit. But by and large the book is still a free thing. Free to be loaned and borrowed, free to be found or discarded. Amazon is seeking to change this, not with malevolent intentions, but, as I said before, to make money. 

I am not sure how this will turn out. Eventually the e-book will be a reality; it is only a matter of time. The question is how that will happen. Will our reading be mediated, or will we have free reign? Time will tell, but for now I am staying away from the Kindle. 

Fashion Statement

This article is by John Feefer from Foreign Policy in Focus. Worth a read:

If you're going to throw rocks at the government, you'd better dress up for the occasion. That's the take-away point from the media coverage of the protests in Pakistan. Splashed across the front page of newspapers last week was a picture of a Pakistani lawyer in a suit launching a projectile at the police. The photo editors couldn't resist showcasing such a delicious juxtaposition of law and disorder.

The coverage in The Washington Post was particularly revealing, though not in the ways intended. In his attempt to deconstruct the image of the lawyer-protestor, for instance, Philip Kennicott succeeded only in displaying his own class prejudices. "Men in suits don't throw things," he writes. "If they confront police, they do it politely, in letters, in words spoken softly, reasonably, between reasonable men."

Excuse me? Men in suits throw things all the time. The suits in the U.S. government, for instance, throw bombs at other countries. But alas, we have no pictures of these government officials breaking laws by signing orders to wage war, promote regime change, or stoke revolution. The truth is, men in suits are just as unreasonable, impolite, and confrontational as your average anti-war protestor—or more so. They simply don't do it in the streets.

The anti-war and anti-globalization movements should take note. Forget pink. Forget Bread and Puppet. Forget peace signs, catchy slogans, Zapatista ski masks, and sensible protest wear. If we want to get media coverage and strike fear in the heart of Washington, we should come out for the next demonstration, all 500,000 of us, in our best interview suits

Oh Nancy...

A few weeks ago I sent Nancy Pelosi an email regarding her position on upcoming rule changes by the FCC in favor of further media consolidation. I am a constituent of hers, so I am to get special treatment you know. Sure enough on her website it says that she only has to respond to constituents. So I dutifully put my name, address, zip code, and phone number into the appropriate boxes and then wrote out my question. The first three quarters of my email was very nice. The last part not so much. But that is beside the point. What I wanted to know was about her position on FCC rule changes, and so I sent off my email, and waited for a response. And waited. And waited. 

Finally today I got a response; about three weeks after I sent it. Late is better than never I guess. What isn't better than never though is the email I got from Nancy. You'll remember I asked about FCC Rule Changes. Here was the answer to my question: "Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding global warming". 

I hope this flub isn't symptomatic of deeper problems in the Nancy office. 

Maybe the answer to my question got lost in the (e)mail. Oh well. 

Colin Powell, where are you?

This is not to say I want you back Colin. I just want to know where you are, that's all.
It's been about three years since Colin (the reluctant cheerleader was probably his nickname inside the White House) left the corridors of power and returned to civilian life. His career in government, to me, can be characterized as sad. He championed a doctrine - a whole doctrine - bearing his name which was subsequently ignored by the Bush administration while he was in office. If that isn't sad I don't know what is. He also was made into the publicity puppet for the neocons, putting his credibility on the line to present "bullshit" - allegedly Colin's words to describe the script detailing Iraq's WMD's (see here) - to the U.N. Not so much sad as pathetic. After Bush won reelection in 2004 with a "mandate" to rule as he saw fit, he swept Colin out the door, replacing him with the more docile Condoleezza Rice.
After that Colin really went off the radar. He popped up in 2005 to timidly, and in secret telephone conversations, cast concern on Mr. Bush's U.N.-hating U.N. ambassador pick, John R. Bolton. He also "talk[ed] about foreign policy matters and military matters" with Barack Obama. Missing are any tell-all expositions of what went wrong in the lead-up to war in Iraq. I guess the guy's too busy giving interviews with GQ magazine and becoming a "limited" partner at the venture capital firm KPCB. He's actually a "strategic limited partner" so I guess he is only employed strategically (I thought that was funny). Oh, and I forgot one more thing: he's also busy appearing with Joe Montana at a tacky - and I mean tacky, check it out here - motivational speaker seminar where you can "send your entire office for only $19".
All I've got to say is that if you are reading this Colin I would really like to get you a speaking engagement on national television - we can call it motivational if you'd like - where you come out and tell the American people that you are sorry for not standing up and stopping the lies that have cost the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, Iraqis.