Europe: size M body in a size XXL shirt
Josef Joffe writes for the German weekly Die Zeit; I've mentioned him before ("World court of a hundred days"). In his latest commentary ("Neue Weltordnung" - New World Order), he considers the growing disparity in American and European capabilities and outlook:

"The truth is," NATO general secretary Robertson said at the 38th Security Conference at Munich, "that Europe is militarily undersized." The 50,000 men in the Balkans are already a burden, "hardly any European country can station effective forces beyond its borders for months, let alone years."

How true and how familiar! Europe wanted to put on an XXL shirt, but only fills out size M.

Joffe makes a good argument why the U.S. should nevertheless not discount European concerns altogether:

How will the USA carry out sanctions, embargoes, financial monitoring, police and spy agency work against the "evil trio," against the global privateers of terror, without international allies? It is precisely in the nonmilitary counter-terror fight that highly developed Europe is the primary contact among the coalition members.

Joffe concludes by focusing on European economic weakness, not its alleged moral superiority, as the key difference and liability facing Europeans:

Europe's size M body lost in a size XXL shirt has to do with its economic weakness, with its sluggishness [Erstarrung] and its wasting of resources supporting the old without helping the new. Conversely, America's power is not just based on its bombers, but on a culture that deals with change and corrects miscues more quickly. A Princeton professor reports that 80% of the doctoral candidates in his economics department are foreigners. Why aren't they coming to Potsdam or Paris? Why is so much more capital flowing from Europe to America than in the other direction, despite the U.S. recession? No one is forcing Europeans to finance the huge U.S. trade imbalance.

If Europe has more strength, it will be able to exercise more power in the world and on America, this colossus that imbues Europeans with fear, envy, and admiration. But strength in the 21st century is only secondarily a question of precisions munitions and drone aircraft. It comes from an economy that adds value, and from a culture that shines outward. By the way, that doesn't just pay for military transport planes and satellites, it also helps win elections.

This is not a message that will make Joffe popular in Europe, I think; for what it's worth, the two published reader responses were not kind. Samples of two aside, it's also a relatively rare point of view in German media and even English media, I'd say from my online media beachcombing.

I've become increasingly concerned about the growing divide between European and American perceptions of the 9/11 attack and American responses to it. It may be that Europe's role has been inconsequential, and that is aggravating and alarming many Europeans, who seem to cherish a view of themselves apart from and better than their American cousins. Americans, for our part, seem to have extended to all of Europe the Bogart line I mentioned a while back in reference to the more florid anti-American intellectuals: in Casablanca, when Peter Lorre asks him "You despise me, don't you?", Bogart replies, "I suppose I would if I gave you any thought."

But now we're giving the Europeans some thought -- and often finding viewpoints that many here find unaccountably hostile, especially in view of the mass murder still less than half a year behind us. Europeans, for their part, appear to focus derision on all those American flags (now, perhaps sadly, fading from view). There's also a good deal of tut-tutting about the lack of consultation in pre-war, wartime, and post-war (not that it's over, but let's say it looks winnable) American actions -- as if those were two European skyscrapers that crashed to the earth, not two American ones. To me, and to many other Americans, these objections seem more esthetic than substantive. But to me, these and other objections need to be answered, over and over again if necessary, until more trust, friendship, or at least understanding is restored. On both sides.

And remember, too, inconsequential though it may appear, Germany is rendering real military assistance to the best of its capabilities; Japan, France, and the United Kingdom are also part of the naval and ground forces involved in Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghan peacekeeping operation. Media voices and self-aggrandizing politicians notwithstanding, real help is being given. If some of that help appears halting, and if some of those navies and forces appear puny, they are still what there was to give, especially given countries no less sleepy and self-centered on the morning of 9/11 than our own. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:30:00 PM -- |  

 
The Federal Center for Political Education
No, it's not where the secret U.S. government keeps its black helicopters and the Roswell alien; it's Germany's Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (BpB).* From the "about us" part of the site:

The Federal Center for Political Education was founded in 1952 as subsidiary [nachgeordnet] office of the Federal Department of the Interior, to "solidify and disseminate democratic and European ideals among the German people (founding legislation)."

On the home page, the current BpB tagline is a (quite decent) quote by Max Frisch, the Swiss writer:

The man who doesn't concern himself with politics has already taken the political position he was trying to avoid.

Under the sidebar option "Zielgruppen" (target groups), one learns that

The most important target groups are multiplierettes and multipliers [Multiplikatorinnen und Multiplikatoren] of political education, people who are active with their social engagement in clubs, groups, but also in educational and media fields...

I point this site out just because this seems to me a very weird sort of thing for a government to be up to. I'm curious what German readers think of it. Doubtless many hadn't heard of it either, it seems like the earnest, slightly out-of-touch kind of outfit most people ignore no matter where they're from. But does the mission statement above get heads to nodding, "Well, nice idea," or does it seem like a mildly offensive waste of your taxes? Which is how it would seem to me. (And now I bet I'll learn about some obscure federal office I'd never heard of before that survived despite Reagan, Gingrich, Lott, and Bush, and does the same thing.)

The site ties in to the main ongoing theme of this blog with its 11th of September and its consequences page. You can subscribe to a daily digest of online media articles, compiled by one Thorsten Schilling. I've subscribed, and find that Mr. Schilling's selections and tone are often more than a bit snarky. Today, for example:

http://www.oulala.net/Portail/article.php3?id_article=39- "Mon père etait un terroriste" by Gilles Lestrade describes the life of a fighter in the resistance against the German invasion in WW II. The retreat to the mountains and the carpet bombing by the Germans remind one of very current events. (Link of October 26). [...]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0204/p11s01-coop.html - US soldiers abroad don't necessarily attract attention for their cultural sensitivity. Whether it's about the proper clothing in Saudi Arabia (see the link of January 16, or rapes by Marines in Japan, Pat Hold believes that it's urgent that something be done to teach the troops how one behaves towards foreigners.. (The Christian Science Monitor 4.2.)

Maybe I'm being a bit thin-skinned here. But this is an official German site, disseminating a 9/11-news mailing list to key members of German society (judging by the target group claim). I have no idea how widely the e-mail is distributed, or what its ultimate impact is. At any rate, my German readers, it's your tax Euros at work, I assume you feel it's worth it. It just seems a little odd to me that you would pay your government for help with developing your own political opinions.


=====
*"Bildung" might also be translated as "development," in the sense of formation or growth. "Education" is a good enough translation here, I think. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:06:00 AM -- |  

 

Olympic update: Blogs prevail, press forward with demands for complete IOC surrender
Jeff Jarvis notes with little satisfaction that the IOC backed off the "no WTC flag in the march" rule; he's calling for the crowd to sing "God bless America" as well now. Charles Johnson joins in. I like "America the Beautiful" better myself, but now is no time to quibble; just don't forget to bring your garlic and wooden stakes, too.

Jarvis provides a link to an LA Times article that publishes excerpts from IOC meeting minutes. The article describes the remarkably phrased support Samaranch got from his IOC buddies when called to testify before Congress about the Salt Lake City bribery scandal:

And as Samaranch prepared to depart for the U.S., then-board member Jacques Rogge of Belgium urged him to take solace in a proverb from 17th-century French author Jean de la Fontaine: "The spittle of toads never reaches the light of the stars," according to the minutes.

Rogge isn't just the world's best-known expert on toad spittle; he's now the new president of the IOC.

The Salt Lake City bribery scandal cuts both ways of course, although Salt Lake merely outbribed its competitors, who weren't so squeaky clean either. The LA Times article also describes an equally venal USOC, as far as I can tell, so maybe it's something in the Olympics water, not the Eurowater. Let's just boycott the whole thing. For the IOC to set the Olympics up as a competition of national teams, and then get self-righteous about one team and one flag is hypocritical beyond belief. At any rate, I don't plan on writing about the Olympics again. posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:25:00 PM -- |  

 
A thousand stories in the city, or A different kind of memorial
Via the German le sofa blog: a web site called Mr. Beller's Neighborhood. What is it? It starts out as an aerial photo of Manhattan. You can drill down to closeups of neighborhoods -- and links to stories or story collections appear as red dots over the buildings they're connected to. The stories are often about someone's job at the building, in a kind of "Studs Terkel with GIS" survey of New York's working world that is fascinating to surf around in. The writing isn't confined to that, though; there are also links to essays and photoessays (e.g., "Defacing Britney: A Look at New York's Newest Folk Art") as well, some by well known writers, others not. One of the coolest things about the site: "Tell Mr. Beller A Story." And yes, there is a link to "Stories from the World Trade Center," that I'll make you find yourself. Another great feature: if you use the sidebar story list, every story has a link at the top that centers the map frame on the location involved. One other note: bandwidth helps.

The stories are being anthologized in "Before & After: Stories from New York." The blurb explains:

This anthology of stories from Mr. Beller's Neighborhood was in production in August, 2001. Then everything changed. And so this book now has two covers, two halves, one before and one after. Each section has thirty stories, including work from Michael Cunningham, Jeanette Winterson, Meghan Daum, Phillip Lopate, Sam Lipsyte, Vince Passaro, and Luc Sante.

You can order the book via the site. Sofa blogger Peter Praschl also links to an interesting New York Times review of the book and site. From the review:

Scott Rettberg, founder of the Electronic Literature Organization, said the linear progression of a printed collection reflects its editor's artistic decisions. But online, he said: "Readers expect they will be able to make navigational decisions and form their own compositions from the available material. The music of print is more classical than the improvisational jazz of electronic writing."

Well, the improvisational jazz of some electronic writing. You can count on more of a comb-and-tissue-paper variety of electronic writing around here. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:45:00 PM -- |  

 

Or else what?
The ever-feisty New York Post's headline today is Olympic Insult:

U.S. Olympic athletes who want to pay tribute at Friday's opening ceremony to the victims of 9/11 have been barred from marching with the American flag flying at the World Trade Center that tragic day. [...]

Sources said the IOC had told USOC President Sandy Baldwin that Americans shouldn't carry the flag because many nations had suffered.

Oh.

The story also reports that the flag will be raised during the national anthem at the opening ceremony, so in the interests of international understanding, I'll grant it's not a kick in the groin, just a poke in the eye. Exactly what would the IOC do if the American team goes ahead and marches in with the flag? Rush the team with their little blue blazers on? Guess I'm a unilateralist after all.

I gag every time one of those IOC functionaries talks about the "Olympic movement" anyway. The only "movement" those guys care about is cash into their wallets or call girls into their hotel rooms. The hell with them and world opinion, too, as far as this goes. (This is a "me, too" opinion. For more and better of the same, here are Jeff Jarvis and Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who accurately describes the IOC as "a bunch of leathery vampires who can be relied on to leave no authoritarian boot unlicked".) posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:27:00 PM -- |  

 

Your blog news update

You heard it here last: Patrick Nielsen Hayden's Electrolite blog has returned. Glad to see he's got too much spare time on his hands again. No, I'm not. Yes, I am.

Steve Den Beste explains why I'm still featured on his link list, when more popular blogs like More Than Zero and Little Green Footballs no longer are. It's because they don't need the help, also known as frequency-dependent selection. Thanks! I appreciate that (really); I'm not in this for the hit counts, but I do like to see some visitors and most of all comments and e-mails. I especially appreciate it considering that when I disagree with Steve, I'll write about it. "Should be more popular" ... might be a good tagline. I've always wanted a really good tagline.

Jim Henley holds forth on why conference dominance runs in streaks. It makes sense. Now maybe he can suggest why both the World Series and the Super Bowl this year were among the best ever. (Also, imagine if the Yankees had won the Series: Yankees, Patriots ... we almost had a spooky 9/11-ish thing there, so I guess I'll almost turn superstitious).

Matt Welch, Instapundit, and Jeff Jarvis were each read by more people in the last minute than visit here all week. On the other hand, new posts at those sites generally run to a couple hundred words max. Readers here routinely get to slog through thousand word treatises. Maybe some sentence diagramming would help me. (Some people will write about anything.)

Out of the clear blue sky, Peter Praschl wrote an exceptional meditation/short story earlier today. Too bad you can't read German.

German expatriates Andreas Schäfer ("Fragmente aus Kalifornien": Fragments from California) and Kai Pahl ("dogfood") wax eloquent about the Super Bowl. Kai in particular dissected the game nine ways from Christmas. Guy knows his stuff; I agree that the first half was pretty great, too, if only because it became clear the thing really wasn't going to be the runaway everyone figured: the Patriots were hanging in!

Both Andreas and Kai were turned off by the anti-drug commercials, which I actually thought were OK. In general, as policy, I think that commercials beat gun battles, jail cells, and drug rehab, which seem to be the primary alternatives until everything's legalized five hundred years from now. But whatever.

Returning to the important stuff, it's interesting that American football is followed so closely by Germans over here -- and that German soccer gets rapped in the process. Here's Schäfer on the Raiders-Patriots classic:

Short-sleeved fighters in a blizzard; the girlies in the German Bundesliga could cut themselves off a slice of that attitude.

Likewise, fellow ex-pat Konstantin Klein (nothing but the truth):

And then I imagine what our Bundesliga millionaires (those guys who roll around on the grass in agony whenever opponents get within a yard of their precious hides) would have done in this game. Probably would have wet their pants.

They will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. The NFL rules, bringing good old-fashioned American values -- West Coast offense, lots of blitzing, the two-minute drill, and above all tremendous hits -- to a grateful world. Or at least to Germans waiting for a national soccer team worth a damn.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:12:00 PM -- |  

 

Good news on the AIDS front: microbicide for women to enter clinical trial phase
Newsweek's Periscope notes the development of a microbicide called Carraguard, with the potential for a huge impact on AIDS in Africa:

Carraguard doesn’t work like non-oxynol 9; rather than kill viruses, it binds to them so they can’t enter the bloodstream. But what’s truly groundbreaking is its potential for poor, AIDS-racked regions like Africa. Odorless and undetectable, the gel could be a lifesaver for women whose partners refuse to use protection—as long as it’s sold for pennies. The need to keep prices low has thus far deterred most pharmaceutical companies from pursuing microbicide research. Carraguard’s creator, the Population Council, is a tiny nonprofit funded by donors like the Gates Foundation, which has pledged $20 million toward clinical trials starting in the fall.

The Gates deserve a lot of credit for the very well chosen work they support via the Gates Foundation; global health is the Foundation's top priority. As Ms. Gates explains:

As Bill and I began to explore where we could make the greatest impact with our resources, we were stunned to learn how many lives are being saved – and how many more could be saved – by providing access to simple interventions such as vaccines.

Thus, the foundation is supporting not just microbicide research, but AIDS vaccine, reproductive and child health, infectious disease vaccine, and a number of other programs. The importance of a woman-controlled AIDS prevention mechanism -- as opposed to condoms -- can't be stressed enough. If "Carraguard" proves effective, the development could be one of the next best things to an AIDS vaccine.

I know about this because my wife works for the Population Council, and they're very excited about these clinical trials. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:02:00 PM -- |  

 

Imbalance of bluster
As is well known, President Bush spoke of an "axis of evil" in the State of the Union address, leading to concern in some quarters and satisfaction (or at least nuanced understanding) in others. Over at "More Than Zero," (MTZ) for instance, "Andreas" wrote (01/31/2002):

While Bush's speech made us all a little nervous, it was intended to make terrorist sponsors nervous. The jangling of European nerves was a side effect. This was a forceful speech intended to show terrorist regimes and dictators that:

a) we won't necessarily be restrained by a need to please Europe or other parts of the world, and

b) we won't be restrained by waiting for an open act of aggression on your part.

The point was to increase our threat power. It would not have been effective if it weren't as jarring as it was.

I replied with a comment the other day, to which "Andreas" replied; have a look, if you like. To clarify my comments there, I'm not saying MTZ approves of bluster, but he does seem to approve of Bush's "axis of evil" phrase. My read of his comments is that he feels it improves the "threat imbalance" that terrorists and their sponsors enjoy vis-a-vis nation-states with more self-imposed restrictions on their behavior. But while MTZ appears to see "axis of evil" rhetoric as threat enhancement, I see it as one checkers move away from mere bluster. Unless the regimes involve cave in with fright, Bush's statement only temporarily improves the threat imbalance, and ultimately will confront us with a "put up or shut up" dilemma we didn't need. At that point we either admit we were blustering, or we'll "put up."*

And that would presumably involve starting a war, something international law and opinion quite reasonably frowns on, even when there's a reasonable case for it. After all, who gets to decide how reasonable the case is? Many in China, Iraq, and any number of other countries no doubt have any number of wars they would be happy to start. The authorized brains in those regimes may think their case is "reasonable" too: Taiwan gets some rocking military equipment, Israel exists for yet another intolerable day. Are we willing to furnish them with a precedent? Are we willing to rely only on our own military strength not just to start wars we believe we have to wage, but also to prevent wars we disapprove of? I'm not; I'm concerned that's where the "axis of evil" rhetoric is heading us.

Those are not "ironizing" quotes around "axis of evil." I'm no fan of any of the regimes Bush mentioned, and I'm aware of the danger they -- or factions within those regimes -- pose to our safety and those of our friends. I disagree with MTZ's occasionally equating them with Al Qaeda as far as the game theory of it all goes; unlike that group of worthies, these are states with something to lose (even North Korean functionaries have some kind of life: food that isn't grass, a roof, 100,000 dancer follies, what have you.) I continue to believe it's better to focus on those who have actually attacked us, to get wars over with as quickly as possible rather than turning them into a new way of life, and, given the choice, to finish one before starting the next. But I'm not blind to the threat these regimes pose.

MTZ comments that he isn't sure the Bush strategy is a good one, either, but wants the threat imbalance problem addressed. So with apologies to devoted non-militarists, non-interventionists, non-imperialists, and/or peaceniks generally, I'll suggest that we spell out a doctrine, not a catchphrase -- preferably in concert with an alliance built or recentered on the concept. That doctrine might avoid making us the sole arbiter of when to declare the need for and carry out self-defensive pre-emptive strikes. It would at least spell out clearly a sequence of enemy missteps that would lead to such a strike, and a sequence of steps or a timetable that ratchets down the danger. It would also spell out whether this is a militant antiproliferation doctrine, a militant anti-terror-harbor doctrine, or both.

I'd prefer that doctrine to rely as much as possible on existing international law, so that we're making up the fewest possible new rules, and gain at least some clear advance understanding, even approval -- dream with me! -- of our position. I'm aware of the limitations this could put on us; but I wish others would similarly acknowledge the problems with unilateral action on our part. Meanwhile, the presence of a well-understood doctrine might begin to address that threat imbalance; we would not be groping for responses to WMD discoveries and the like, but might instead just set the clock ticking on defined courses of action, and let the other side sweat out the confrontation. With all due respect for Dubya's wartime instincts, diplomacy may not be his long suit: you might get more bad guy "blinks" this way than with the "apes at the water hole" approach. And as Ug once reasoned, in extremis you can always go ahead and beat their brains in after all. ("In extremis" was a widely used Neolithic ape-man phrase.)

Treaties, conventions, and the customs of foreign policy are ultimately made of paper or less; but they still serve as brakes on bad behavior, and that often benefits us, preventing some crises and providing some consensus about how to analyze and respond to others. Building and respecting international systems of law and trade has been a key element of U.S. foreign policy since the nation was founded. The treaties we've signed are also ostensibly the supreme law (see Article VI) of our own land, on the same plane as the Constitution itself. One of those is the U.N. Charter, which appears to vest primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in the Security Council, and which limits self-defense to cases of actual armed attack. The Constitution is no suicide pact, it's true. Yet we owe it to ourselves and to a world ruled by laws, not guns (not even ours), that we work within those laws, and seek to modify them in advance when necessary.


=====
* MTZ notes this is similar to a point made by "Sergeant Stryker" ("walk the walk") which may well be the case. Also, I suppose there's a 3rd alternative to "put up or shut up": "bluster even harder," but that just postpones choosing between the first two. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:01:00 PM -- |  

 

The State Palestinians Are In
...is the title of a New York Times Magazine article by Deborah Sontag, that complements the pieces I've posted about Palestinian polling data, politics, and the settlement issue below, and which I mentioned in an ensuing discussion on Charles Johnson's "little green footballs" site. As I acknowledge there, this is anecdotal stuff, a reporter's notebook of her conversations with Palestinians from all (or at least many) walks of life and political persuasions. The point is, there's a debate going on among Palestinians, too, one that is obscured by polling numbers. It's worth reading in full; herewith some interesting excerpts:

[Abed al-Raouf Barbakh, Fatah street leader, impatient with Arafat:] ''We are tired and fed up with all the fighting,'' he said. ''We want all the blood that has been shed to be enough. Give us our small, little country, our West Bank and Gaza, and then it will all end. Israel can keep Israel and leave us the hell alone.'' [...]

[Father of Palestinian Christian businessman rebukes son for being impressed with suicide bombers:] ''Excuse me, David, but what did they do, these noble creatures? Blow themselves up? They blew themselves up and blew us up with them. To hell with them. What is the result of their self-sacrifice? Now America is saying Arafat is bin Laden? Bravo for Hamas.'' [...]

In Palestinian eyes, however, the outline of an offer put on the table by Ehud Barak ''fell far short of minimum requirements for a viable, independent Palestinian state,'' as a senior Palestinian negotiator wrote in a letter to members of the United States Congress. Barak was offering nothing more than ''three noncontiguous cantons'' surrounded by Israeli-controlled territory in the West Bank, the letter continued, concluding, it ''would have made Palestine nothing more than Arab 'Bantustans' perpetually at the mercy of Israeli economic and military closures.''

[Hussam Khader, Palestinian independent member of Parliament. agrees with above, considers Arafat corrupt. He says, if negotiations start again:] ''it will be the same corrupt people representing us,'' Khader said. ''I pray to God that I wake up one morning and discover that these people have fled to Europe with their money and their children. If I were Yasir Arafat, I'd start to clean house. If he wants to end his life as a hero, he will do this. Otherwise, Arafat will not be remembered by history. I am told that there is a saying in the Torah that many who are now in their graves believed that life would not continue without them. But it did.'' [...]

On the fateful day in October 2000 when a Palestinian mob set upon two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah, Abdel Jawad went to the scene, which was near his house, and urged Palestinian police officers to turn their weapons on the mob. ''I was almost lynched myself,'' he said. ... He last left Ramallah in June, when he traveled to Amman. On his return, he ended up stuck at a checkpoint near Jericho, baking in a clot of traffic as young Israeli soldiers slowly examined each car, single-file. ''As I sat there, with the cars beeping and the soldiers barking at people twice their age, I actually had a fantasy -- it was like in slow motion -- of getting out of my car and killing those soldiers. And I am a humanist. But I felt it firsthand; these are the daily humiliations that push Palestinians to commit acts that are not in our self-interest. Israel is doing its best to get us all to join Hamas.'' [...]

Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem and the P.L.O. representative in the city, even went so far as to gore a sacred cow: the right of return of Palestinian refugees to the towns and villages they lost in 1948. Nusseibeh said publicly [link by TN] what Palestinian negotiators have long known -- that the right of return is a deal breaker. A two-state solution, he said, implied one home for Israelis and one for Palestinians -- not one for the Palestinians and the other also for the Palestinians.'' His remarks caused a tremendous ruckus, but Arafat stood by Nusseibeh. [...]

[Ahmad Abu Salem, truck driver wounded by in Israeli/Palestinian crossfire:] ''I think it's in the interest of the people to calm things down because we are the ones who are paying a heavy price. I feel bad that the Israelis have lost innocent civilians. But we have lost more. We are under siege. We are hungry. We are unemployed. We are -- I am -- crippled.'' [...]

[A patriarch and his family in Gaza; some sons in PA police, others are pro-Hamas. Some are wearing New York Giants knitted caps:] I asked the Hamasniks if they were Giants fans. ''It's just for warmth,'' one said, squirming and folding under the logo on the knitted hat. The other barked out, ''I like New York because of what happened to it in September.'' A Palestinian police officer brother jumped to his feet: ''I condemn that remark. Eat it! Eat it!'' The Hamasnik snickered, ''Or what, you'll arrest me?'' The patriarch laughed throughout the conversation. ''This is normal for Gaza,'' he said. ''You find a father who's Hamas, his son may be Fatah or vice versa."

None of this proves anything, other than that there are a lot of opinions out there, some I like and some I don't. Note, though, that there is Palestinian discussion of the "right of return" to Israel proper, by highly placed Palestinians; check out that "said publicly" link above. And that there is a war-weariness and willingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist by "regular radical" Palestinians like Barbakh. But also think about good people like Abdel Jawad, who tried to prevent the lynching of those Israeli soldiers and is therefore a good deal braver than I think I'd be. If he's running out of good will, too, no wonder those poll results look so ugly.

I'm not saying I even know what I think. I'm profoundly disturbed by the poll results I see out of the West Bank and Gaza, and I utterly condemn bombing and strafing pizza parlors, discos, and bar mitzvahs in the name of resistance. Yet I also know the blame for the current situation is not all on the Palestinians or their leadership. We can not allow ourselves to become as simplistic and bloodthirsty as the worst of the players in the Middle East, the Mughniyahs and Hamas types. Nor can we allow ourselves to be duped by duplicitous voices like Arafat's. Yet Arafat remains the acknowledged leader of the Palestinians. Were there elections, he'd likely be re-elected, judging from other results in the same poll. So ... what? Kill him? Bomb the West Bank day and night? Will that work? Has it so far? posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:21:00 PM -- |  

 

Report: Arafat recorded discussing Karine A weapons shipment
Via Sean McCray ("next right"), the New York Post article "GODFATHER ARAFAT'S LIES ABOUT TERROR", by Uri Dan:

Then Israel provided the audio - months of intercepted conversations between Arafat and his aides discussing the $20 million arms deal with Iran.
The Israeli surveillance operation even caught Arafat and his aides' involvement with Imad Mughnia, one of the 22 men on a U.S. most-wanted list of terrorists.
The name of Mughnia, a Lebanese Shiite with close ties to Iranian intelligence, emerged in the investigation of the Marine-barracks blast in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 250 Americans, and later as the commander of the hijacking of a TWA plane to Beirut.

Assuming the story holds up, and the technical evidence bears out that these recordings were of Arafat et al, that pretty much ends my theory that this was done by other political factions within the PA; I suppose it was always a stretch. And if Arafat is dealing with Mughniyah, that's worse news than the Karine-A. Mughniyah is a bona fide sociopath, personally responsible for torturing CIA station chief William Buckley to death in Lebanon, and beating to death a Navy Seal aboard that hijacked plane. Now affiliated with Hezbollah, Mughniyah was once part of Arafat's Fatah group. posted by Thomas Nephew at 4:57:00 PM -- |