The War of Return

With the recent news that a fourth nation in the Arab League has committed to “normalizing” ties with Israel, this book comes at an opportune time. The War of Return, details how the Palestinian refugees from Israel’s 1948 war of Independence have been used as pawns by the Arab countries as a political weapon against Israel. The book’s subtitle tells it all; “How western indulgence of the Palestinian dream has obstructed the path to peace.” The history is well known; as a result of Israel’s war of Independence, around 750,000 Palestinians fled their homes. This book isn’t about how that happened, other than the authors point out, they fled because of the war; if Arab countries hadn’t invaded Israel no Palestinians would have fled, and there wouldn’t be Palestinian refugees. But there was a war, and there was a refugee problem from that war. What ultimately created the insurmountable problem that the “right of return” is today, is the focus of this book. As the authors explain, in previous conflicts refugees were not resettled back into the countries they fled or were expelled from. World War Two and the immediate aftermath saw millions of refugees who fled or were expelled from one country to the next. The authors detail some of these: “no fewer than twelve million Germans fled or were expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, Yugoslavia, and the Baltic States”; “three hundred thousand Italians were forced out of Yugoslavia”; and “14 million Muslims fled India for Pakistan while Hindus and Sikhs made the opposite journey.” None of these today live in refugee camps. As another example, the authors point to 3.1 million North Korean refugees who fled for South Korea in the Korean war. A UN organization, UNKRA was set up to settle these refugees. So successful was this resettlement, that in 1958, UNKRA was disbanded as no longer needed. And of course, today, South Korea is an economic powerhouse, one of the Asian tigers. Wars have always produced refugees, what is different about the Palestinians was and is a desire to maintain them as refugees. The refugees from WWII were handled by the United Nations organization for refugees, UNHCR. But because the UNHCR goal was resettlement of refugees in the nations where they fled, the Arab nations, wanted a different organization for the Palestinian refugees. UNRWA was created for just for the Palestinians and maintains them as refugees. At the same time the UN passed resolution 194 which called for peaceful resolution of all disputes between Israel and the Arabs. Paragraph 11 in that resolution states, “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date.” This has been pointed to by Palestinians as the justification for the “right of return.” As the authors explain at length, there never was or is any right of return for refugees from any conflict. And a UN resolution does not have the ability to confer any such right. In 1965 UNRWA decided to extend eligibility to the children of persons who were themselves born after May 14, 1948. That is, the children and grandchildren of the original refugees. In 1982, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution further extending eligibility to all descendants of the original Palestinian refugees. The authors point out how unique this is. All other refugees ceased to be refugees when they gained citizenship in another nation. Not so the Palestinians. Over two million Palestinians refugees living in Jordan have Jordanian citizenship yet maintain their status as Palestinian refugees. Whatever governments we want to consider as existing in Gaza or the West Bank, Palestinians in these areas, have passports and the right to work in these areas. They cannot truly be considered refugees, yet some 2.2 million are considered refugees by UNRWA. Today the only truly stateless Palestinians are those living in Lebanon, which refuses to grant them a path to citizenship. Of the approximately 5.5 million Palestinian refugees how many meet the original operational definition of “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” UNRWA refuses to say. Yet Palestinians refuse to relinquish the right of return. To most westerners the idea that 5.5 million, mainly descendants should have some right to return is difficult to fathom. This has led many westerners refuse to believe that this isn’t a core Palestinian demand. Rather they believe that it’s a bargaining chip, that the Palestinians would exchange for an independent state. The Oslo accords broke down when Arafat claimed he could not give up the right of return. It wasn’t the right of return that was the bargaining chip, it was the independent state that was given away to keep the right of return. With the news that the UAE is normalizing ties with Israel, it is very likely that a few more will follow suit. Bahrain and Qatar and possibly Morocco are on the short list. To make the right of return work the Arab Nations needed a united front. That front might now be crumbling. The end result might be an independent Palestinian state, without a right of return.

Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East Just read a great book, Black Wave, about the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Thinking about the book beforehand I thought I could understand the regional rivalry, but that was completely wrong. Before the discovery of oil in 1938, Saudi Arabia was a desert populated mainly by nomadic tribes. There could have been no rivalry with Iran, the ancient nation of Persia, with its rich history. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is entirely a very recent occurrence. The author Kim Ghattas, who was born and raised in Lebanon tries to answer the question, “what happened to us?” She points out “the question may also surprise those in the West who assume that the extremism and the bloodletting of today were always the norm.” Back when I lived in Israel, 1975 to 1985, Israeli TV used to show an Arabic movie on Friday afternoon. These movies were usually made in Egypt (which as the author points out had the third largest movie industry in the world at that time). These movies were very similar to the teen movies of Anette Funicello and Bollywood today. But what would strike one today if they were to see one, is the secularism of Egyptian society. Women wore entirely western clothes, the sexes mixed freely, they went to discotheques. Other than they are set in Egypt, they could have been teen movies from the 50s and early 60s here in the states. There have been no shortage of books tracing Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of al-qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, or Hamas. What there haven’t been is a book on how Islamic fundamentalism took over the governments of the middle east with what the author calls “the dictatorship of religion.” Starting her history in 1974, she points to three seminal events that occurred in 1979; the Iranian revolution, the siege of the Holy Mosque in Mecca by Saudi zealots, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Other events that shook the middle east in that same period: civil war in Lebanon; Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982; Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel, and Sadat’s assassination a few years later; Assad coming to power in Syria; Saddam Hussein coming to power in Iraq; the Iraq Iran war. And that’s just a partial list. Reading the book, one is reminded of these events, great and small. At the time of the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Islamic nations of the middle east praised the revolution. That praise did not last. In 1987, Pakistan’s President, Zia ul-Haq sent Sunni militants to attack Shia villages. In fighting that lasted two weeks “52 Shias and 120 Sunnis were killed”. The author points out “here then was the epicenter of modern-day sectarian bloodletting, the first of its kind on modern times. Sectarianism had been weaponized”. The author’s full story of “what happened to us” cannot be put into a short review such as this. And it’s one of the few books about the middle east where Israel isn’t the main actor on the stage about which all events are related. Anyone who wants to understand the modern middle east and how it arrived to its “what happened to us” moment, will find this book very informative. I read a lot of books on the middle east; this is one of the best I’ve read in a while.

I try to follow news and books concerning the Middle East. Unfortunately, these books are generally written by authors who are supporters of Israel. I don’t read many books by Palestinians or books that take a pro-Palestinian view. This isn’t so much a choice but rather a function of how I come to know about a book which is generally through best seller lists, such as the New York Times, or a bookstore like Barnes and Noble. Pro-Palestinians books are not well represented in either of these two sources. However, even within these sources I don’t make a point to read many pro-Palestinians sources. I have found most of them, and this applies whether it is a leaflet handed out at a rally or a book such as I’m linking to below, the Palestinians are to a major extent, bystanders, rather than actors with an interactive role. This book, is very much the same. I came upon this book trying to find something on the Madrid peace initiative. Firing up Amazon, this book came. Since I had read an earlier book by Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, I picked it up. Since the sub title of this book indicates that it concerns the failings of the US in the peace process, it piqued my curiosity. If I had to distill the author’s complaint into a single idea, it would be that the US government does not support Palestinian rights as they do Israel’s. The author states “my primary objective is to reveal how closely entwined have been the respective policies of the United States and Israel toward the Palestinian people over recent decades. Logically, this should have disqualified America from playing the role of intermediary between the two antagonists ….” The author discusses three “moments” in the peace process to drive home his point. The first moment is Begin and Palestinian autonomy in 1982. The back story to this first moment followed Sadat’s unilateral peace initiative with Israel. In theory this peace was also supposed to bring about a Palestinian state after some interim period of limited autonomy or self-rule by Palestinians. When Reagan came into office, he coined a phrase “PLO fighters” to appeal to moderate Palestinians to join a peace process and the author speaks optimistically about The Reagan Plan. (I have to admit I don’t really remember any Reagan Plan.) However, no moderate Palestinians came forward. (A point the author fails to mention.) Hence, the Reagan Plan went nowhere. The second moment was the Madrid – Washington negotiations, 1991-1993. As the author admits these talks failed, albeit not his main complaint, when Bush lost the election to Clinton. At this same time Yitzhak Rabin replaced Begin as Prime Minister and started back channel talks with the PLO that resulted in the Oslo accord. At this point, it’s hard to understand the author’s complaint, this is without a doubt the high point of the peace talks and certainly since that point. The third moment is Barak Obama and Palestine, 2009 – 2012. Regarding Obama’s failed attempt at Middle East peace the author acknowledges that the effort was quite possibly doomed to failure when first, in 2009 Netanyahu, the ideological successor of Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister, and then second, the Republican takeover of congress in 2010. Obama attempted to halt settlements but was completely defeated by Netanyahu and congressional Republicans. I read the book because I read about the Israeli - Arab conflict. Unfortunately, because the author, disappears any role of the Palestinians it is not a very balanced book. Israel does a lot of things wrong, certainly their settlement policy is very likely leading to disaster. The US does a lot of things wrong. They could be more balanced to the Palestinians but by their continued reliance on terror and armed conflict they just don’t give US lawmakers much to work with. The Palestinians also do a lot of things wrong, and this can’t just be ignored. As for the author’s general complaint that the US does not as actively support Palestinians as much as Israel the author notes several times this is partly due to demands that Palestinians renounce terrorism without making any such demand of Israel. There is no equivalence. Israel does not put bombs on buses carrying Palestinian children home from school. Israel does not put bombs in restaurants where holiday celebrations are taking place. Israelis don’t intentionally plant bombs at bus stops filled with Palestinians. If the author wants to make the argument that Palestinians are under occupation by Israel and these are legitimate measures of an armed struggle, then make that claim. But that argument is decidedly different than a claim of equivalence.

Yep, Pence and Trump a great combination. Seeing as Pence's political career is all but over anywhere outside Indiana, this would be his one shot. But I'm still waiting for next Monday; will the GOP dump Trump? I can't believe the once Grand Old Party want's Trump to forever be the symbol of the Republican Party. May we live in interesting times. Boy are they.

Review "The Great War of Our Time"

In his book “The great war of our time” the author Michael Morell, who rose to the rank of Deputy Director of the CIA describes his time at the CIA. It is an interesting book and well worth the read. Unfortunately, or perhaps not the author sets out to write a nonpartisan book. This meant that certain stories had to either be created or maintained. For example the beginning of the book describes the author’s role in delivering the DPB to the President, in this case George W. Bush in his first year in office. So despite numerous books that describe Bush as detached and unquestioning during these briefings, this author claims that Bush would rapid fire questions at him. Is this true? The author gives us no anecdotal stories of this questioning. The two or three anecdotes he does provide concern trivial matters not really connected to the briefings. We do learn however about the “now you’ve covered your ass” statement. The author claims Bush did make this statement however it was a joke. The statement was not following the August 6th briefing “Bin Laden determined to attack in the US” but rather an earlier briefing in which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld asked if the intel chatter could be to goad the US inton an over reaction. I can easily believe the authors claim on the timing of the statement, what I find less believable is that it was a joke. Why would it be a joke? If Bush or the VP asked for this information how was it a joke when it was provided? No, it doesn’t add up. The answer by the way on the question came in the form of a followup briefing “UBL threats are real.” When the author describes the Bin Laden briefings the author again, to be nonpartisan has to include the disclaimer that no action could be taken because the intel was nonspecific. This just doesn’t cut it. First, why bother providing the information if there was nothing that could be done about it? Second, and this is very important, in the late 90s I had a job that required frequent air travel, there was no shortage of times the airports were on alert. And when intel told of a millium bombing all the ports were put on alert. At one of those ports bomb making supplies were intercepted. Threats generated alerts in the late 90s, nothing in the first nine months of Bush’s administration. The author also claims that the Bush administration had planned a series of meetings to discuss terrorist threats. This information is contradicted first by Richard Clark and second by the Bush administration’s own record. No such reviews took place. As we come to the intelligence concerning Iraq’s WMD again the author is forced to toe a party line. The intel was in good faith, the CIA just genuinely just got it wrong. As part of that evidence the author claims other countries also thought Saddam had hidden WMDs. That statement however is contradicted by the Downing Street memo; “the evidence is being fixed to fit the policy.” If British intelligence had thought Iraq had WMD the memo would have read “the evidence is being used to support the policy.” Same with the evidence Colin Powell presented at the UN, just honest mistakes. Sorry doesn’t add up. The rest of the book in interesting, the first part however for me anyway the most informative.

Cruz upset Trump with a close third place by Rubio. I personally don't understand Trump. I can't for a minute believe he actually wants to be President. Does he not know he would have to live in the White House and like work. Can he really think he can live in a Manhattan Penthouse and appear a couple of time a week in a Board Room like on the Apprentice and that's all it takes? No he's got to drop out, or lose out. Then it's Cruz or Rubio. Cruz is a disaster, Rubio is merely terrible. Super Tuesday is March 1st and at the latest by mid March we will probably know. Will it be a disaster or merely terrible?

Conservatives and "conservatives"

There are conservatives, in the mold of Edmund Burke, then there are “conservatives” or movement conservatives. There is nothing wrong in being a conservative; conservatives just don’t believe in rapid change, they would rather change be gradual and cautious. When Republicans took control of congress in 1994 and rolled out a paper listing over one thousand government departments that they wanted to eliminate there was nothing remotely timid or cautious to that change. What they wanted was nothing less than a complete overhaul of government. As was frequently stated “shrink government to a size that can be drowned in a bathtub.” In the argument between Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke, Paine argued for the rights of man which he saw as in conflict with a monarchy. Democracy and monarchy cannot coexist, he wanted to change the system to a democracy. Burke desired a gradual change. There is nothing gradual about the change desired by today’s “conservatives.” When Rick Perry states he wants to eliminate three government departments, even if he doesn’t remember exactly which ones, there is no discussion of whats wrong or what should be done differently, it’s all about the change. That’s why “conservatives” only disparage government as the problem never a solution, to discuss government in any other way would prompt the discussion of what needs changing and the best way to go about that change.