Palestinian opinions, Israeli settlements: neither help
On Tuesday, I briefly noted some of the results of a survey by a Palestinian polling group. Gary Farber ("Amygdala") picked up on that; yesterday, he wrote in far more detail about that survey than I did. He broke up his comments in to three parts; have a look. Farber itemizes findings like these:

An overwhelming majority, ranging between 91%-98%, views all Israeli violent acts against Palestinians as acts of terror.

An overwhelming majority, ranging between 81%-87%, does not view Palestinian violent acts against Israelis as acts of terrorism.

While 94% would view as an act of terrorism a future use by Israel of chemical and biological weapons against Palestinians, only 26% would view the same act as terrorism if carried out by Palestinians against Israelis.

Now, the final item above is just ugly; the 74% of Palestinians who accord themselves the unbridled right to use heinous weapons are evidence of a population in a vicious frame of mind. Many of the other poll findings are equally unsettling; yet settlements, checkpoints, and all the rest of the real grievances of occupied Palestinian (or, if you prefer, occupied Jordanian) life can not be excuses for contemplating chemical attacks, or for carrying out suicide bombings and other mass attacks on civilian targets.

But as Farber points out, polls like these are snapshots; I would add that this one is a wartime snapshot. Americans themselves are in the grip of wartime thinking; "and rightly so," we think and I agree. But not so long ago, we weren't; we now contemplate wars (plural) each of which Americans would have rejected out of hand prior to September 11. Similarly, not so long ago, Palestinian polling numbers looked very different, too; indeed, this point is developed within the polling director's article in Foreign Affairs which I also mentioned on Tuesday. Substantial majorities supported the peace process, radical Islamist groups were much less popular; in July, 2000 the level of support for violence was around half of the roughly 60% figure it would be one year later.

What has changed is that an an Oslo peace accord was derailed by Palestinian radicals -- but also by Israeli ones. Remember the 1994 Hebron mosque massacre? At least 39 people died in a hail of bullets -- and the perpetrator's grave has been turned into a shrine by radical Israelis. Remember who killed Rabin? But mainly, remember that since the 1993 Oslo accord, over 20,000 housing units -- over half financed with public funds -- were started in the occupied areas.* A self-respecting, patriotic Palestinian would be about as fed up with Israel now as many Americans are about Al Qaeda, and that can make for a lot of ugly opinions, especially if you're losing. And so an uprising began, one that is morphing into a war before our eyes. The Palestininan Authority fans the flames with its school curricula, its media and information policy, and its attitude towards violence -- whether that attitude amounts to "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" or direct support for weapons shipments, bombings, riots, and the rest of it. I believe that Arafat and the Palestinians made a dreadful miscalculation in turning down the Barak proposals at the 2000 Camp David summit. But Israel has arguably pursued a miscalculated, two-faced strategy of its own since Oslo as well, a strategy that even Barak shared in.

I don't for a second hold with suicide bombings of civilian targets. That, more than anything else, is why I have been closing my eyes to the settlements issue; the people who do such things are not seeking real negotiations, in my view. If Israel dismantled every settlement and retreated to pre-1967 borders, such people would continue their war; to them, Israel itself is the provocation, not the settlements. Such people must be defeated no matter what; at the end of the day, Israel's right to defend its citizens against such criminality is paramount and undeniable, by any means necessary.

But in the long run, and in fact even in the middle and short run, Israel's right to occupy Palestinian(/Jordanian) land and provoke, humiliate, and sometimes abuse its inhabitants is not paramount and is eminently deniable**. I should think even the most fiery "warbloggers" over here (in fact, especially the most fiery ones) might well find themselves ardent Palestinian nationalists if they were to walk a mile in Palestinian shoes, and would find themselves sorely tempted to split hairs, set aside scruples, and lie, cheat, steal and kill generally in the fight against their enemies.

Under the current circumstances, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories may be the best outcome we can realistically hope for. But that outcome will be fought tooth and nail by many settlers, a sizeable number of whom have come to view their settlements as part of God's plan, more than some return to their literal ancestors' homeland. That can't be good enough for the rest of us; any old Tom, Menachem, or Mohammed can come along claiming he's doing Yahweh's, the Lord's, or Allah's will. Americans owe it to themselves and their Israeli friends to resume urging Israel to cease settlement construction, and ultimately to find a way to end the occupation. That doesn't amount to "letting the terrorists win"; it amounts to being honest with ourselves and our friends.

=====
*The Oslo accord took no specific position on the settlements issue. The chief ongoing argument against the settlements is that they violate the Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stating that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Israel's supporters argue that the settlements are not illegal under international law. But the very double-edged argument is that Jews and Israelis have a "right of return" to the lands they were expelled from after 1948; this very assertion by Palestinians to land within Israel's pre-1967 borders that they were just as arguably expelled from after 1948 is considered the deal-killer sine qua non by many Israel supporters. The legalities of the matter may be in dispute; but the Israeli position seems intransigent, and based on the calculation that the settlements can be defended by force, just as Israel's pre-1967 borders can be defended by force. That's no better a basis for negotiations than the Palestinian one many Israelis suspect, bent on pushing Israel back into the sea.

**Even by soldiers in its own army, it seems: the New York Times reports "Reservists Balk at Occupation, Roiling Israel".

Update: Jim Henley and Charles Johnson respond (+/- favorably, +/- skeptically). Read their comments for yourself, of course; summarizing, Henley points out that the Barak proposal wasn't all that great, and left settlements in place. Johnson points out that there will still be lots of Arab troublemakers egging Palestinians on to continue the fight, even if Israel withdraws. I join in a discussion of Johnson's post. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:58:00 PM -- |    

 

German troops may be stationed in Kenya
Die Welt reports that as many as 100 troops will be stationed in Mombasa, Kenya as part of Germany's contribution to Operation "Enduring Freedom," assuming airport facilities there are adequate. They will be responsible for aerial reconnaissance of Indian Ocean shipping; Djibouti, further north, is the naval base for the German ships involved in the same effort. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:13:00 PM -- |    

 

EU Convent? What's next, NATO monasteries?
FAZ.com reports: Fourth German Official May Join EU Convent
Newsrack learns: Wife "Not Really Surprised"
Plus: "Shocker: Convent led by former French President Valerie Giscard D'Estaing" posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:48:00 PM -- |    

 

Does Germany Condone Kidnapping?
That's the title of an op-ed by Sally Quinn in today's Washington Post. Quinn explains:

Germans are kidnapping American children and, with the help of German courts, refusing to allow their American parents ever to see them again. [...]

Germans who marry and divorce Americans take their children back to Germany. Then, in a scenario worthy of Kafka, the American parent is deprived of any custody or visitation rights. After several years, the children don't know or remember their other parent. The courts then decree that the children don't want to see that parent and would be traumatized by any visit. The courts also bill the American parents for child support. If these parents refuse to pay, and still try to see their children any way they can (say, from a parked car across the street from the house), they are thrown in jail for nonpayment.

Quinn cites the case of Joseph Cooke, whose wife abducted his children, had a mental breakdown, and placed them with foster care rather than return them to Mr. Cooke's custody. Another case, that of Catherine Meyer, proves that "at least" connections don't help much; she's the wife of the British Ambassador to the U.S, but has seen her kids only once since 1994. And no, these were not abusive parents. Quinn notes that progress in the Cooke matter has stalled despite specific promises to President Clinton more than a year and a half ago to resolve the case.

Although it may not always seem like it on these pages, I think highly of the Bundesrepublik, its people, and their accomplishments, and I value my family ties to the country. That said, these cases are ... how can I put this nicely ... I can't: F***ING OUTRAGEOUS. For two German reports, here are Spiegel articles from August 2001 (Sehnsucht nach Samuel, "Longing for Samuel") and May 2000 (Die Gestohlenen Kinder, "The stolen children").

Germans should not allow their country to continue to do this, any more than Elian Gonzalez should have been kept from his father. It took way too long, but the U.S. finally did the right thing there; maybe Germany will too, some day. At least one German parents rights group, paPPa.com, seems to share Quinn's opinions; their web site is filled with links to court cases, demonstrations, and news articles about this subject.

Meanwhile, complaints about Camp X-Ray are tabled until this far, far more important matter is resolved: the rights of decent fathers and mothers to see their own children, as opposed to the rights of terrorists to air conditioning, blindfold-free transportation, and P.O.W. status. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:00:00 PM -- |    

 


(Photo courtesy of "More Than Zero.")
posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:36:00 AM -- |    

 

From a recent Palestinian poll
The poll was conducted by PSR (see prior post) from December 24-29, 2001, questioning 1357 Palestinians in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; margin of error +/- 3%. Among the most telling results:

92% support attacks against settlers, 58% support attacks against civilians inside Israel.

In the event of a peace agreement, 66% would support joint Palestinian-Israeli economic institutions and ventures -- but only 6% would support adopting school curriculum that recognizes Israel and teaches children not to demand return of all Palestine to Palestinians.

94% oppose the US campaign against Bin Laden; only 16% believe that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Only 17% would support a political system "as in Iran" for the future Palestinian state. 42% said they would prefer a system "as in other Arab countries, like in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria; and 19% said they would prefer a system "as in the US, Europe and Israel."

It's hard to pick the most depressing item above, but I'd pick number 2; it tells me Israel's right to exist is not really acknowledged at all by 94% of Palestinians, that any settlement is just a preliminary truce before the next round of bombings. But maybe I'm missing something.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:31:00 PM -- |    

 

Palestinians Divided
...is the title of a very interesting and well-linked article in Foreign Affairs by Khalil Shikaki, Associate Professor of Political Science at Bir Zeit University, and Director for Policy and Survey Research at the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah. Khalil begins,

Has Yasir Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), orchestrated and led the second Palestinian intifada in order to gain popularity and legitimacy while weakening Israel and forcing it to accept extreme Palestinian demands? Or has the uprising been a spontaneous response by an enraged but disorganized Palestinian "street" to Likud Party leader (and later Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon's September 2000 visit to the site known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as al Haram al Sharif, and the failure of the Oslo peace process to produce an end to Israeli military occupation? Most Israelis take the first position, whereas most Palestinians take the second. Both are mistaken.

The truth is that the intifada that began in late September 2000 has been a response by a "young guard" in the Palestinian nationalist movement not only to Sharon's visit and the stalled peace process, but also to the failure of the "old guard" in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to deliver Palestinian independence and good governance. The young guard has turned to violence to get Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip unilaterally (as it withdrew from South Lebanon in May 2000) and simultaneously to weaken the Palestinian old guard and eventually displace it.

Shikaki describes a "young nationalist guard" in an alliance of convenience with Islamist groups like Hamas, and with political goals of its own in opposition to the "old nationalist guard" centered around Arafat. (This is similar to but obviously better informed than guesses and observations of my own about the Karine-A affair -- which happened after this article was published.) Shikaki describes three scenarios for this internal Palestinian struggle and the winners:

continuation of the status quo, benefiting the Islamist groups as resistance to compromise grows and willingness to use violence gains

an Israeli unilateral withdrawal, (a popular idea among Israelis, depending on how much land is surrendered) which "would be an unqualified victory to the young guard."

a negotiated outcome -- either comprehensive agreement, a stabilization package to "tone down the violence," or something in between -- which would be a win for the old guard.

Shikaki lists conditions for a comprehensive agreement which seem like a mission to Mars these days, but reminds us that in the post-Camp David days, they seemed attainable. Willingness to withdraw from most of the 1967 territories, evacuate most of the settlements, and accept a land swap to allow the remaining ones to stay under Israeli control are some key elements. While Israelis would have to elect a new government for this, Shikaki believes that the Palestinian old guard would have to adapt to its rebellious youths by embracing domestic political reform, or face continued internal opposition.

This is a pretty steep path up and out of the mess. Given its unlikeliness, at least in the near term, Shikaki's analysis of option 2 is interesting. He believes the PA would refuse to move into vacated areas in the absence of an agreement, but the "young guard," people such as Samhadaneh in Rafah, Barghouti in Ramallah, or Khader in Nablus and their allies would be more than willing to take over. He seems to think that's bad, and no doubt he knows better than I do; but no doubt, also, he's got his own allegiances which seem to be more or less "old guard" with his nose pinched shut against the smell of corruption.

Personally, I'd guess that many Israelis, even Sharonites and Likud types, would rather negotiate with the "young guard" than an old fraud like Arafat. If they pull a unilateral withdrawal, they might be well advised to make it a pretty deep one, throw up a pretty high wall, and let the Palestinians fight it out among themselves for a change.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:46:00 PM -- |    

 

Augstein demands air conditioning for Camp X-Ray
Another* cri de coeur by Rudolf Augstein, publisher of German newsweekly Der Spiegel, as he contemplates Islamist terrorist boo-boos and aggravations in Guantanamo Bay following their richly deserved beating in Afghanistan. In last week's crocodilian lament, Ach Amerika! ("Oh America!"), Augstein asks his German readers to join his horror at the American military blindfolding, shaving,** and even (gasp) chaining the prisoners from Kandahar. You almost expect Augstein to complain that the Geneva Conventions require pocket money and a half day of free unstructured time a week. Especially, of course, if the detainees belong to organizations more akin to the Mafia or high seas pirates than anything international jurists ever paused to consider over coffee and cake at Geneva.

I can understand that Augstein's self-interest may make him hope for a nice little prisoner uprising, it would make great copy no matter what happens: if Americans wipe out the uprising, it might be a tasty war crime to bitch about; if Americans die, why, those jack-booted thugs are finally getting some of their own medicine. If only the uprisings were interesting when they happen to Pakistanis; they get them all the time. Just last week another six hapless foot soldiers paid the price for their superiors' continued and suspicious incompetence in guarding and transporting Al Qaeda prisoners.

The point of the Geneva Conventions must surely have been -- well, I don't know that, start over -- surely ought to have been to assign rights and responsibilities to the signatories, and to establish a mutually beneficial and reciprocal standard of behavior. Where that expectation has no hope of being met, the Conventions shouldn't be flogged into one last mile after another of service they ought not to have been intended for. There are perfectly good grounds and reasons not to assign prisoner of war status to these guys: if just carrying a gun openly and fighting U.S. forces turns out to be a ticket to Geneva Convention prisoner of war treatment, look for drug runners, narco-terrorists and any of twenty or thirty million numbskulls between Rabat and Djakarta to jump on the bandwagon next.

But maybe it isn't the Geneva Conventions Augstein cares about, maybe it's ... animal rights?

The accommodations in Guantanamo's "Camp X-Ray" mocks every description. The internees are held in 1.8 by 2.4 meter open cages, in hot, humid climate. Were chimpanzees corralled this way, animal rights groups would be beside themselves.

My goodness! That's awful! Open cages in a humid climate... no, wait, that makes sense, unless there's an air conditioning clause in the Geneva Conventions. 1.8 by 2.4 meters... OK, it's not the Ritz. Europe being what it is, I imagine there's a regulation being born in Brussels as we speak fixing terrorist open air cage dimensions at 2.0 by 2.6 meters.

Meanwhile, there's a reasonably urgent need to interrogate them -- not torture them, interrogate them -- and P.O.W.'s can't be interrogated beyond name, rank and serial number. So people who abandon common sense about these bastards are asking us to walk away from some of the best leads we have about where the next attacks are planned, for no apparent better reason than to preen their smug superiority. International law can't possibly be well worked out about the highly unusual circumstances that the Taliban and Al Qaeda present. I'm not saying beat these guys to within an inch of their lives, and throw them in The Hole for four months -- I got over that by September 13th or so. But I am saying that when I get a finger wagged in my face about reasonable, hellishly careful precautions -- physical and legal -- with unreasonable, hellish people, I'd like to break off the finger and feed it to its owner. Augstein concludes,

The Americans can only get on their high moral horse if they let themselves be measured by their own standards. A democracy is always only as good as its behavior towards the (allegedly) worst terrorists.

So that's how to measure democracies! Who knew. Well, I guess all those bagels, cream cheese, and prayer mats are money well spent. Clearly, Americans are less interested in moral equestrianism than Augstein. But just as clearly, there's nothing to be ashamed of at Camp X-Ray.


=====
* I discussed Augstein's writings on 9/11, Israel, and the U.S. a couple of weeks ago. Didn't like him then, either.
** Re shaving: I've read a number of suggestions why this was done, including lice, and simply to tick the guys off, which would be good enough for me. My guess, for what it's worth, is that long beards could plucked and woven into ropes and thus weapons without much trouble; plus you can hide stuff in them. So off they go, and off they stay. If that all bugs Augstein and his ilk, that's just icing on the cake. If it runs against the International Understanding on Terrorist Facial Hair, let me suggest it's time for a new conference in a lovely Swiss resort. Surely we can all get behind that.

And credit Jim Henley with the point about last week's uprising in Pakistan. posted by Thomas Nephew at 3:36:00 PM -- |    

 

Thank you
...to Le Sofa Blog, the popular German blog I've mentioned before, for including this blog on their updated link list. That's really pretty cool. I just hope the Statue of Liberty won't scare off readers ... before they actually read what I write and never come back for that reason.

Also, thanks to Joerg, who recommended the January 19 piece about German blogger reactions to an incident in the town of Pirna to a German blog digest he's involved with called BlogHaus. (Joerg is the "Joerg DiJaLog" of that piece). Quite a lot of readers took his advice; I hope many will return.

Thank you, also, to many others who've included me as a recommended link on their sites, including Jim Henley, Charles Dodgson, More Than Zero, Dan Hartung, Greg Hlatky, Ken Layne, Matt Welch, Steve Den Beste, Jeff Jarvis, Charles Johnson, Patrick Nielsen Hayden (come in, Patrick, do you read? over), Shiloh Bucher, Justin Slotman, Reid Stott, Gary Farber, Leon Kuunders, and Bill Davis. Like Ken Layne, I've gathered a list of blogs I check on a separate web page, powered in my case by backflip.com; see "blog tour" on the left under "Backflips." posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:40:00 PM -- |    

 

Kudos
...to Charles Johnson ("Little Green Footballs"), and Jeff Jarvis for their ongoing fine blogs, and for their recent nominations for "Bloggies" as best political sites. While 99% of you reading this no doubt found them before you ever clicked to this page, some of you, particularly those of you who speak Deutsch, might like an introduction.

Johnson, a web designer, runs a site that is very entertaining (rotating graphics, Frank Zappa, Firesign Theater and other quotes I can't recognize, polls suggesting we attack Geraldo Rivera, and much, much more!) but more importantly very informative as well. He has made an ongoing focus of Saudi Arabian, Palestinian, and Arab opinions, revealing in the process the rampant anti-Semitism and intellectual dishonesty among state-sponsored and public opinion in the Arab world. He's also made an effort to point out more encouraging currents in Arab public opinion and intellectual discourse; it's not his fault there seem so few to point to. These are by no means the only issues Johnson tracks; also, the discussions are often lively and well-informed as well.

Jarvis is a survivor of the WTC attack, and an eloquent voice in what can sometimes be a somewhat shrill crowd of bloggers (I'm sadly no exception). The "World War III" in his blog headline was and is a rattling reminder of the truth, yet in his day to day writings Jeff has remained calmly and sensibly focused on the essential issues: homeland security, plane safety, prosecuting the war, avoiding infighting, remembering the victims. He has recently created a second site, 9.11 Memorial blog, focusing on how to best commemorate the 9/11 attacks and the World Trade Center. In e-mail exchanges over the last few months, I've come to see him as not just a cybervoice I like to read, but as a friend.

I don't always agree with Johnson or Jarvis (although I generally do), but both are required reading for me. Good luck to both of them in the contest. Check 'em both out if you haven't already; links are always provided on the left. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:40:00 PM -- |    

 

Apologies, unsolicited...
...to Steve Den Beste and/or any others offended on his behalf or their own by my use of the word "shabby" to describe the firefighters memorial controversy. Who knows, maybe Steve didn't even notice, which I guess would be fine with me. It's the only thing I wish I could take back about what I wrote two Fridays ago, but it's still enough to make me regret the piece as a whole. It was not directly referencing Steve, for what that's worth, but it could easily have been read that way given the articles involved. If I'd given myself a day or two, as I sometimes do with pieces I know I've been "writing angry" about (the keys start making a certain loud clacking sound), I think I'd have avoided my mistake. Which was to use a flaring, dismissive word that wrongly failed to acknowledge any validity to the other side of the question. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:39:00 PM -- |    

 

Kind of glad I'm not a shareholder of any of them
Had to laugh about this piece in the Post today: Andersen's D.C. Area Clients Stay Loyal: Enron Case Won't Lead to a Switch, 14 Companies Say. The hard-hitting piece by Kirstin Downey Grimsley listed Sallie Mae, Deltek Systems, Washington Gas, F&M Bancorp, and others who remained favorably inclined to Andersen:

Even as congressional investigations of Enron Corp.'s collapse focus on questionable accounting and document shredding at auditor Arthur Andersen, many Washington area companies audited by Andersen express strong support for the firm. [...]

Lori Becker, chief financial officer at software maker Deltek Systems Inc. of McLean, said she would "go kicking and screaming" to the audit committee of Deltek's board of directors if it suggested switching firms.

On the face of it, there are at least two ways to take Ms. Becker's statement, and the first one that occurs to me is probably not what she had in mind. Nothing against Becker and Deltek that I know of, they're doubtless a sterling bunch, and their Andersen accountants are doubtless a sterling bunch, too. But them telling me so is not exactly proof any more. It's as if the reporter hasn't understood any of what happened; Andersen didn't do anything to Enron, it did stuff with and for Enron insiders and -- woops! -- against non-insider shareholder interests, where most of us Washington Post readers who own any stock find ourselves.

The one interesting tidbit is that Pennzoil-Quaker State company officials reported that Andersen "pushed back" when they proposed accounting maneuvers. It turns out Pennzoil is based in Houston, too, so they presumably worked with the same Andersen office that handled Enron. Maybe Andersen didn't get a big consulting contract from Pennzoil like the one that seems to have made them Lay's and Skilling's willing slaves. Or maybe Enron just kept them so busy they didn't have time to help orchestrate more shenanigans. Or maybe those bad boys at Pennzoil-Quaker State are so wild even Arthur Andersen's Houston office blushed. So keep digging, Ms. Grimsley! Maybe there's a story in there after all. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:10:00 AM -- |    

 

The other American Taliban
Via Boing Boing (A Directory of Wonderful Things):



I say burn him. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:34:00 PM -- |