By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM—What has Israel contributed to the impasse in the peace process, and to the suffering of Palestinians?

That is a question several have asked me, often with a follow up charging that I have not responded.

I have responded, more than once. Those convinced of Israeli culpability either have not understood my English, or they are not satisfied with my explanations. When I do not list the severe errors that they hold dear, they accuse me of evading the question.

Israelis have made no shortage of accusations against their own government for “missing opportunities.” Usually this means not offering enough, or not taking advantage of the possibilities of Palestinian receptivity with a generous offer.

No doubt Israel has not made its offers attractive enough. The question is, could Israel have offered enough to satisfy Palestinians and other Arabs, and lessened restrictions on the West Bank and Gaza, without endangering its own security?

Could it have gone after the really bad people, and allowed other Palestinians freedom of movement, including opportunities to work in Israel?

To those questions there is no absolute yes or no.

Moreover, it is overly simple to discuss “Israel” as a policymaking entity, just as it is overly simple to discuss “The United States” or any other democracy.

Democracies have dominant policymakers, but those individuals cannot overlook the pressures received from domestic allies and antagonists, the constraints of economics and international politics. Israel’s political spectrum is wide and boisterous, with demands for spending more on social services or doing more to pursue peace with the neighbors. There are religious Jews more concerned with observing the Sabbath than anything else, intense religious nationalists who feel they have a deed from the Almighty for the whole of Eretz Israel, and young couples, with or without a religious motivation, who want the best housing they can acquire for the least money.

One result of all these pressures is about 500,000 Israeli Jews living on land that Palestinians claim as their own. For numerous Palestinians, all Israelis are living on Palestinian land.

There may have been missed opportunities since the crucial events of 1948 and than 1967, but they have not been obvious.

Israeli policymakers have generally not moved any more heroically or decisively than policymakers in other democracies. Israel has limped along following what its officials perceived as opportunities and constraints, rather than conducting a thorough analysis of the present and future, then an assiduous pursuit of a rational strategy. Over the years settlers have demanded construction, suburbanites have demanded homes on cheap land, Palestinians have not come forward with attractive offers, and inertia has done its work. Politicians typically do what is easiest, not what one or another group of deep thinkers with controversial ideas claim is wisest.

Occasionally there is an heroic moment in politics, but often they end badly. Remember John Kennedy ordering an escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, and George W. Bush invading Iraq and Afghanistan with aspirations to make them stable democracies?

Among the tough nuts currently facing those who would bring peace to the Holy Land are those half a million Jews living where others do not want them. No one should expect a Jewish government to move them, especially after the removal of a few thousand Jews from Gaza brought rockets instead of peace.

Those faulting the Israeli government for missing opportunities have their favorite moments when they are convinced peace was at hand. Camp David in 2000 was one of those. Analysts quarrel about offers made, Palestinian responses, the presence or lack of counter offers, or whether the whole thing was made hopeless by the Palestinian narrative of being the sole party that has suffered, and having the weight of Islam on their side.

Without trying the impossible of solving this or other disputes about moments in history, I have no trouble faulting the Palestinians for mistakes greater than those of the Israelis. It has not be wise for them to insist on what the side with greater power has viewed as unacceptable: the right of refugees and their families to return, and 1967 borders. They have spoiled their chances further by incitement of their own people, and violence against Israeli civilians. The result is a profound lack of trust, which threatens the viability of any negotiations.

The claimed “punishment” of all Palestinians because of a few bad applies is another issue without a simple answer. Armies do not operate like the local police. They do not have complete control over the population, and the people they would arrest have the means to resist them. Are the Israelis less considerate of the local population than other active armies? The question provokes loud claims rather than conclusive answers. The Goldstone Report on Gaza demonstrates predetermined conclusions and reliance on questionable testimony that renders it a hostile document rather than anything reliable.

Is Gaza the world’s largest prison, as claimed by those thinking they are on the moral high ground?

Blockade is a conventional way of warfare, not objectionable when waged against an enemy who targets one’s own civilians, and fails to provide a prisoner the elementary rights assured by the rules of warfare. The IDF monitors levels of food, fuel and medications allowed into Gaza. Reports are that the people eat better, and are healthier than those in much of the Third World. Part of the explanation is the United Nations, which had been providing food, housing and medical care for 60 years, as well as protection for fighters and stores of munitions in its facilities. The Palestinians suffer as a result of all that assistance, insofar as they have been kept from looking after themselves.

You have heard of welfare dependence. The Palestinians represent the world’s worst case.

Add Obama to the problems currently facing both sides. He has lessened whatever meager prospects there were by his overreaching demand of a total freeze of settlement building, including Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and then backing down and praising Israel’s partial compliance. The combination has turned both the Israelis and the Palestinians against him, lessened his credibility as a mediator and the prospects of peace in the near future.

There have been several years of relative quiet, considerable economic development, and fewer Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas of the West Bank. If Palestinians can see those signs as better than violence, it may help to keep the heroes out of action. The crucial element of trust among Palestinians as well as Israelis may then grow to the point where meaningful negotiations are feasible.

*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University

On December 27, 2008, the Israel Defense Forces began their assault on the Gaza Strip in what they called Operation Cast Lead. 13 Israelis and as many as 1400 Palestinians were killed in the three weeks of fighting. The war enjoyed wide support among Israelis: according to the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research, 94% of Jewish Israelis (76% of Israel’s population) supported the attack. Operation Cast Lead caused enormous suffering in Gaza and has been a thorn in the side of Israelis since its commencement. Numerous human rights organisations have issued reports on the conflict accusing both sides of war crimes, and the Israeli government has denied any but the noblest intentions. How did we get here?

This essay uses national role conception theory to explain how Israel’s political culture approved of Operation Cast Lead and permitted the latest brutal attack on the Palestinians. You can find it at the following link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23348184/Paving-the-Road-to-Gaza-Israel-s-National-Role-Conception-and-Operation-Cast-Lead

On June 5, 1967, Israel went to war with its neighbours. By June 10, Israel had more than tripled in size. In a decisive victory in six short days, Israel defeated Egypt, Syria and Jordan, who in turn had help from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan and Tunisia. Soon dubbed “the Six Day War”, this short, regional conflict would go on to have enormous implications for Israel, the Middle East and the peace and security of the world.

This series of posts will summarise, in three parts, the causes, conduct and consequences of the Six Day War. It attempts to give a simple but not simplistic account of the facts, inasmuch as the facts can be ascertained from noteworthy historical accounts of the war.

This account will begin with the consequences, followed by the conduct of the war in its most important events and finally, the war’s causes. We start with the consequences of the Six Day War in order to show the reader the enormous impact this small war has had, and why he or she should continue reading.

Consequences
The Six Day War’s consequences were numerous and far-reaching, and some of them plague the region to this day. The changes of perceptions of threats in the area, the 1973 Yom Kippur War and subsequent Egypt-Israel peace accord, the hostage massacre at the Munich Olympics and the increased importance of the Middle East as a Cold War hotspot are some of the war’s short term outcomes. I will attempt to outline the longer lasting ones here. They are the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the occupation the Palestinian territories and military and nonmilitary conflict.

First, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamism, or jihadism, or whatever you want to call it, is an indirect consequence of the Six Day War. Before the Six Day War, Pan-Arabism was the motto of the day. Egypt, under Gamal Abdel Nasser, had become the leader of a kind of anti-colonial, anti-Israeli, socialist movement in the Arab world. This movement was a source of unity and the reason why Arab states combined their armed forces on the eve of the Six Day War. In a very unusual act as governments go, Egypt and Syria had even united under one state to form the United Arab Republic, though only for three years. Nasser was very charismatic and popular and, in the lead up to the Six Day War, was assured a win by those around him.

One year before the Six Day War, in 1966, Nasser ordered the execution of Sayyid Qutb, a leading intellectual member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qutb was not a terrorist (and the Brotherhood is not a terrorist organisation), but he played a big role in the rise of Islamic terrorism. When he was executed, he was made a martyr. His ideas spread and “jihadist” organisations like al-Qaeda followed them.

The transnational Islamist movement arose in a vacuum. After the Six Day War, the Arab leaders (the losers) bickered and fought. Each heaped culpability on the others and suddenly, unity was no longer a priority. Some leaders, such as Jordan’s King Hussein, wanted a peace accord with Israel, while Nasser engaged Israel in the pointless but deadly War of Attrition. Pan-Arabism thus discredited, Islamic fundamentalism became the new ideology of the Muslim world. While most Muslims do not fall under this banner, Islamism has attracted people from countries as diverse as Indonesia, Morocco, India, Iraq, Britain and Spain. And the main target of anger and terrorism in the name of Islam has been Israel.

In the second lasting consequence of the Six Day War, Israel acquired the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. It occupies the last four of these to this day. The return of the Sinai to Egypt was the major reason that Egypt and Israel were able to sign a peace agreement in 1978. Israel and Jordan signed a peace accord in 1994 but return of the West Bank was not part of the deal. It was believed that the Golan Heights could be returned to Syria and the West Bank to Jordan for peace accords, but they were not. The Heights were not of sufficient importance to Syria and peace with Syria not of sufficient interest to Israel to ever make the exchange. And no one wants the Gaza Strip. What problems these territories have caused.

The acquisition of territory by conquest and the settling of it with the conquering state’s citizens are both strictly prohibited by international law. With the exception of East Jerusalem, which the vast majority of Israelis refuse to give up, the government of Israel once hoped that the occupied territories could be returned for peace treaties (“Land for Peace”). At the same time, however, it was allowing Jewish settlers into all areas of the territories. Settlements began springing up everywhere. Settlements in the Sinai were uprooted to return the land to Egypt, and settlements in Gaza were removed in 2005 for reasons we will not go into here. But there are still half a million Jewish settlers in all the occupied territories. Going into all the trouble they have caused for both Israel and the Palestinians is the subject of the book “Lords of the Land” by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar; suffice it to say, the occupation and settlement are the primary reasons the Palestinians are angry.

Third and most important, and related to Israel’s territorial gains, it may be fair to say that all major violence against Israelis and Palestinians since June 1967 has been due to the consequences of the Six Day War. One consequence of the 1948 war, the first Arab-Israeli war, was the beginning of the Palestinian refugee problem. The Six Day War exacerbated it. The Palestinians were pushed in greater numbers into refugee camps in places like Lebanon and Jordan. Palestinians were a big presence in western Jordan, and around 1970 had almost carved out an autonomous enclave on the East Bank of the Jordan River. The Palestinian organisation Fatah, led by Yasser Arafat, conducted border raids on Israel and fought with Jordanians as well.

In September of 1970 (“Black September”), Palestinians attempted to assassinate King Hussein. They also hijacked airplanes and, after removing the hostages, blew them up on television. The Jordanian army attacked and, after a year of fighting, drove them out of Jordan to Lebanon.

The Six Day War is also known as the third Arab-Israeli war; the fourth one was in 1973; and the fifth one was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The Lebanese Civil War broke out in 1975, and after a short time staying out, Arafat’s guerrillas entered the fray. The Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF, entered Lebanon in an attempt to shore up a friendly government and take out the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. For some time it occupied Beirut, but was forced to retreat to a small part of southern Lebanon that it held as a buffer. Israel’s invasion is generally held as the progenitor of Hizbullah, which prodded Israel into violence several times since, most evidently in the 2006 Lebanon War. In what many Israelis saw at the time as unprovoked and unnecessary violence, in 1982, the IDF killed several thousand Lebanese, enabled the massacre of more than 800 Palestinian refugees and suffered more than 600 casualties.

The occupation of the territories turned the IDF from a defense force into a police force, setting up checkpoints, defending settlers and bulldozers, arresting and shooting Palestinians for violating curfews. This oppressive policing of Palestine led to the first Intifada. The typical image of the Intifada is the Palestinian boy throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. The first Intifada was an uprising against Israeli control of the Palestinian territories and lasted for six years. The second Intifada, characterised less by stones and more by suicide bombings, also lasted several years (when it ended is disputed) and a third one may be in the works.

Contrary to what many Israelis believe, the Intifadas were spontaneous, not planned. They were not the attempted destruction of the State of Israel by the Palestinians but may be likened more to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis: people were herded into terrible conditions and handled with violence. Only the most sheeplike people would not consider fighting back. Things have not gotten any better in the occupied territories and there is no solution in the works. The Palestinians were the real victims of the Six Day War, a war that, in the minds of too many people, has never been resolved.

Tomorrow, we will look at the conduct of the war itself.

Foreign policy?  Don’t bother me when I’m getting my nails done, you know better!   Take a message.  I am serious.  I don’t care about Japanese bird flu.  Not now, did you hear me?  You’re worse than my kids.

What?  Junior needs soccer equipment?  Authorize it!  I don’t care if Congress has to pass a spending bill.  I don’t want to hear about my kids now, get the governess to make those decisions.

North Korea can go fuck itself.  Kim Jong Il is a madman, how can I deal with him?  Hey, watch my cuticles, you’re hurting me!  The man has nukes up his ass, okay.   Subject closed, don’t even talk to me about that narcissist.  (flips hair)

Ow!  Look what you did, you nicked the polish.  This has to be perfect for my visit with the Irish President, we’re going shopping.  Oh and we’re going to that new little bistro on F Street, you know?  It’s adorable, she’ll love it.

Somali pirates?  Oh my god that reminds me, Jorge get that DVD for the kids tonight, put it on your list.  You know, Somali Pirates of the Carib — anyway you know what I mean, Jorge.  You know how I depend on you, darling.  Don’t disappoint me.  Good boy.

Where is my husband?  He’s lunching with who?  The Egyptian prime minister?  That’s my job.  Let go of me, unh!  Damn the polish is nicked again.  Get my coat Celeste, I’m joining them for lunch.  Insubordination!  Huh?  They’re not at the restaurant, well where are they then, the Map Room?

Dial Leo’s cell, gimme that phone.   “Leo darling, where are you and Hosni?”

“Camp David!  I don’t care if Hosni is the President and Ahmed is the prime minister.  For fuck’s sake Leo, you are trying to hurt my feelings!”

“Peace talks?  How come I didn’t know?  No one told me!  Am I PMS’ing again?  You’ve ruined my manicure, I hope you’re happy.”

“Oh–waiting for me?  Ahem. Yes, I’m the elected one, of course.  I’ll be there, hold the presses darling, I – I had to finish my nails, they look gorgeous.  And I had this new facial treatment — oh, they’re waiting.  I’ll be there in a jiffy!”

“Jorge, look after the kids for a couple of days.  Get the Somali pirate movie for tonight, you’re a jewel Jorge.  I’m going to Camp David to make world peace!”  (Sweeps out to waiting limousine.)

The Content herein is Copyright to the Author, All Rights Reserved.

     On Friday evening, a small entourage with secret Service agents in tow, arrived at Fort Hood, TX to meet with the families of those who lost loved one’s in the Fort Hood tragedy Thursday. Had Barack Obama quietly snuck out of DC amdist the healthcare arm-twisting? Now that you’ve had enough time to laugh, that answer is absolutely NOT!!

    The contingent that paid visits to the injured and the fallen was George W. Bush and Laura Bush.

     The Bushes kept their visit low key, not as a photo op.

      The present Commander-in-Chief had remarks shortly after the incident occurred, albeit it took 2:41 minutes of “shout outs” before he got to the solemn remarks about Fort Hood; Later that evening he hosted a concert at the White House. Friday he discussed Fort Hood and the unemployment numbers from the Rose Garden, and postponed his armtwisting on Capitol Hill until today.

     After leaving the Capitol, Obama returned to the White House to the waiting family, and Marine One, ducking off to Camp David before his trip to Asia on Wednesday. Obama will appear at Fort Hood, enroute to China, on Tuesday, for the planned memorial service.

     http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obama_snubs_ft_hood_to_relax_a.html

twitter post:

@DanRiehl per Fox news, GWB and Laura spent a couple of hours at Ft. Hood, no photo op, no fuss, just their support to the families.about 8 hours ago from web in reply to DanRiehl

President George W. Bush has always respected our troops. He has always encouraged, thanked, and praised them. BHussein Obama has always done just the opposite. President George W. Bush would NEVER knowingly allow our troops die daily; ignoring the requests of the general on the ground to send backup troops in order for them to win. BHussein Obama? He has. He does. How long has it been since McChrystal asked for those backup troops? We’re going on 90 days here, people.

Barack Hussein Obama does not care about the massacre that happened in Fort Hood Texas. In fact, deep inside his cold, black, Muslim, American-hating heart – the massacre brings him great joy. His Jihadist brother braved all odds and managed to murder several infidels. In fact, Barack Hussein Obama feel sympathy for his terrorist brother.

So, has Barack Hussein Obama showed up to show his condolences for the families and surviving victims of the massacre carried out by one of his terrorist brothers? NEIN.

Guess who did.

George W. Bush Visits Fort Hood
Article: TheFoxNation

Former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, have visited wounded soldiers and their families after the mass shooting at Fort Hood.

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood’s Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night. Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in an e-mail that the couple thanked Fort Hood’s military leaders and hospital staff for the “amazing care they are providing.”

Now, this wasn’t for some publicity stunt. No, no. There weren’t even any cameras there. He’s no longer president; why worry about public image? He went because he truly, honestly cares about our soldiers. He is genuine; weather you like him or not. He loves America and he loves our troops. Anyone who says the same is true when it comes to BHussein Obama; you’re a liar. That’s right I said it.

George W. Bush Visits Fort Hood, Wounded Soldiers
Article: CBS 11

Former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, visited wounded soldiers and their families near the site of the worst mass shooting on an Army post in the United States.

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood’s Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night. Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in an e-mail that the couple thanked Fort Hood’s military leaders and hospital staff for the “amazing care they are providing.”

An Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 in a shooting rampage Thursday at a Soldier Readiness Processing Center on the post.

Hasan was wounded by a civilian police officer and was taken into custody.

Where is BHussein? What is HE doing to show his false condolences? OH! A VACATION! He and the MicHELLe plan to vacation it up at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.
Very classy. Very noble. Chyeah right.

Historian and writer Tariq Ali and Professor Noam Chomsky speak in London 29 October 2009 on U.S. hypocrisy toward Iran,  U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the U.S. role as Israel’s enabler and ‘mafia godfather’, Palestinian leadership’s ‘collaboration’ with the U.S. and Israel against a ’solution’, international law, the hopes for peace in the near future and the double game the Obama Administration plays with its rhetoric and contrary actions. Mr. Ali begins speaking around the 7:00 mark, Prof Chomsky around the 21:00 mark and a Q&A follows where he suggests a “no-state solution” as “the best solution for the whole world”. (1:57:40):

Noam Chomsky: No Change in U.S. ‘Mafia Principle’

by Mamoon Alabbasi

1 Nov 09 | Middle East Online

As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former U.S. president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington’s foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II.

“As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush’s second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style,” said

“But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story,” he added.

“There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world,” explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of U.S. foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as “the Mafia principle.”

“The Godfather does not tolerate ’successful defiance’. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option,” said Chomsky.

Because the U.S. sees “successful defiance” of Washington as a “virus” that will “spread contagion,” he explained.

Iran

The U.S. had feared this “virus” of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.

“The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources,” said Chomsky.

However, “in 1979 the [Iranian] virus emerged again. The U.S. at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein’s merciless invasion [of Iran].”

“The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means,” said Chomsky.

“The U.S. continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians,” he stressed.

Nuclear attack

Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.

“The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth—unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them,” said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.

Chomsky further explained that the presence of U.S. anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented.

“The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But …the purpose of the U.S. interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran—that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent,” said Chomsky.

Iraq

Chomsky reminded the audience of America’s backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq’s war with Iran.

“The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the [Iran-Iraq] war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons’ training,” said Chomsky.

This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own people, until he fell out of U.S. favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.

“In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler,” Chomsky added.

Then the people of Iraq were subjected to “genocidal” U.S.-backed sanctions.

Chomsky explained that although the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a ” major crime”, many critics of the invasion—including Obama—viewed it as merely as “a mistake” or a “strategic blunder”.

“It’s probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad,” he said

“There’s nothing principled about it. It wasn’t a strategic blunder: it was a major crime,” he added.

Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial U.S. objection.

The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure.

But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. continues to seek a long term presence in the country.

The U.S. mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.

Optimism

Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the ‘West’ can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of ‘Western’ governments.

“There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war,” said Chomsky.

“In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially stated… and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B-52s, so there was no chemical warfare—[the Iraq war was] horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse,” he said.

“And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step,” he added.

“It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn’t deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon—officially at least—virtually all the war aims,” said Chomsky.

“As late as November 2007, the U.S. was still insisting that the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ allow for an indefinite U.S. military presence and privileged access to Iraq’s resources by U.S. investors—well they didn’t get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse,” he said

“So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Louse,” he added.

Turkey

Chomsky said that Turkey could become a “significant independent actor” in the region, if it chooses to.

“Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?,” said Chomsky.

The Europeans “keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the E.U.,” he explained.

But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.

But ‘New Europe’ was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations—which strongly objected to the Iraq war—and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.

So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the U.S..

Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the U.S.-Israeli military exercises.

Fear factor

Chomsky explained that although ‘Western’ government use “the maxim of Thucydides” (‘the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must’), their peoples are hurled via the “fear factor”.

Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either “self defence” or “humanitarian intervention”.

NATO

Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush’s war in Afghanistan, using NATO.

NATO is also seen as reinforcing U.S. control over energy supplies.

But the U.S. also used NATO to keep Europe under control.

“From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe might choose to follow an independent course,” said Chomsky.”NATO was partially intended to counter this serious threat,” he added.

Middle East oil

Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history,” the most “strategically important area in the world,” in Eisenhower’s words.

Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with “substantial control of the world.”

This meant that the U.S. “must support harsh and brutal regimes and block democracy and development” in the Middle East.

Somalia

Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue.

“Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?”

Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is European counties and others are simply “destroying Somalia’s territorial waters by dumping toxic waste—probably nuclear waste—and also by overfishing.”

“What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then we’re all upset about the piracy, not about having created the situation,” said Chomsky.

Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia.

“One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly hailed in the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic charity—Barakat—which was identified as supporting terrorists.

“A couple of months later… the [U.S.] government quietly recognised that they were wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it—but meanwhile, it was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn’t have much of an economy but a lot of it was supported by this charity: not just giving money but running banks and businesses, and so on.

“It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia…closing it down… was another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very weak society…and there are other examples.”

Darfur

Chomsky also touched on Sudan’s Darfur region.

“There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with the region they don’t amount to a lot unfortunately—like what’s going on in eastern Congo is incomparably worse than in Darfur.

“But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you can blame it on an enemy – you have to distort a lot but you can blame it on ‘Arabs’, ‘bad guys’,” he explained.

“What about saving eastern Cong where maybe 20 times as many people have been killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky… for people who… are using minerals from eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals sponsoring militias which slaughter and kill and get the minerals,” he said.

Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is a U.S. alley, he added.

Goldstone’s Gaza report

Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war was bias, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel.

The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defence, although it denounced the method this was conducted.

Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting to military force before “exhausting peaceful means”, something Israel did not even contemplate doing.

In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself is an act of war.

As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that despite adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama made no real effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations.

In the absence of the threat of cutting U.S. aid for Israel, there is no compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington.

What can be done?

Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and does make a difference for the better, urging people to continue activism and spreading knowledge.

“There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic.”

Chomsky noted that public opinion in the U.S. and Britain is increasingly becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.

“Public opinion is shifting substantially.”

And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its policies without pressure from the ‘West’.

“There is a lot to do in Western countries… primarily in the U.S.”

Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in ‘Western’ countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated.

In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who famously called for “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”

Istana rupanya tak selamanya menjadi magnet politik. Justru keputusan-keputusan politik penting acapkali diputuskan di luar istana. Tapi posisi istana sebagai simbol politik semua orang mengakuinya.  Cikeas, Cendana dan Camp David adalah contoh menarik dalam pusaran arus politik.

Puri Cikeas Bogor, bukan hanya kediaman pribadi Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dan keluarga. Tapi juga markas politik Yudhoyono dan Demokrat. Selain di Istana Negara, keputusan-keputusan politik strategis Yudhoyono banyak digodok dari Cikeas. Tak heran bila dalam minggu ini: banyak orang menunggu kabar nama-nama calon menteri dari Cikeas.

Tradisi seleksi calon menteri dari Cikeas seperti pada 2004 lalu rupanya terus dipertahankan oleh Yudhoyono. Dari Cikeas juga Yudhoyono menyatakan pencalonan kembali sebagai presiden dan mengumumkan pidato kemenangannya dalam pemilu lalu. Tak hanya itu, tanggapan SBY terhadap kisruh pemilu legislatif, persoalan daftar pemilih tetap, dan arah koalisi Demokrat juga bermula dari Cikeas.

Soeharto juga memiliki kisah tersendiri di luar istana. Selain Bina Graha yang berada di kompleks kepresidenan, Cendana memiliki arti penting bagi sejarah panjang Soeharto dan Orde Baru. Saat gelombang gerakan reformasi menguat, Cendana benar-benar menjadi poros politik Soeharto. Dari Cendana, Soeharto mengendalikan arah politik sekembali dari lawatan kenegaraannya di Mesir.

Dari Cendana, Soeharto menampik keterangan pers yang dilakukan pimpinan DPR (Harmoko, Ismail Hasan Metareum, Syarwan Hamid, Abdul Gafur, dan Fatimah Achmad) yang meminta agar Presiden Soeharto secara arif dan bijaksana memilih mengundurkan diri.

Bahkan, dari Cendanalah Soeharto merencanakan pengunduran dirinya setelah 14 Menteri bidang Ekuin (Ekonomi, Keuangan dan Industri) Kabinet Pembangunan VII mengajukan surat pengunduran diri setelah “Deklarasi Bappenas”. Nama BJ Habibie sebagai calon presiden juga digodok Soeharto dari istana.

Selain dari Gedung Putih, Presiden Amerika Serikat juga memiliki tempat khusus untuk mengambil keputusan politik strategis. Camp David namanya. Berada di sebelah Utara Maryland. Nama Camp David diberikan oleh Presiden Amerika Dwight D. Eisenhower pada 1953.

Selain sebagai basis angkatan laut Amerika, Camp David juga menjadi tempat pertemuan penting antara Presiden Amerika dengan pemimimpin-pemimpin dunia. Makanya nama Camp David menyejarah dalam sejarah perdamaian dunia antara Presiden Mesir Anwar Sadat dan Perdana Menteri Israel Menachem Begin dengan Presiden Amerika Jimmy Carter pada 1978.

Setelah Perjanjian Camp David, Presiden Amerika Bill Clinton juga pernah menengahi perseteruan antara Pemimpin PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) Yasser Arafat dengan Perdana Menteri Israel Ehud Barak. Camp David juga pernah menjadi tempat perencanaan invasi Normandia, invasi laut terbesar dalam sejarah yang melibatkan hampir tiga juta tentara yang menyeberangi Selat Inggris menuju Prancis yang diduduki Nazi Jerman pada Perang Dunia II. Sebelumnya, pertemuan bersejarah pada Perang Dunia II antara Presiden Amerika Roosevelt dan Perdana Menteri Inggris Winston Churchill juga digelar di Camp David.

Dari Cikeas, Cendana dan Camp David kita belajar tentang “politik ruang”. Bahwa keputusan politik penting justru banyak dirumuskan di ruang-ruang informal politik bukan di ruang formal. (Arya Fernandes)

Check out this new YouTube video and pay particular attention to the last few frames.

yesterday it was 8 years ago.

I’ll always remember where i was. and everyone always wants to talk about it, and bring it up every year, I’m not saying forgetting is an option. because it will never EVER be an option. I’ll talk about it once and this is it for a couple of years.

I was in 7th grade math class, my teacher Mrs. Airing ran in and said “someone hit one of the twin towers.” and then only minutes later she said “someone hit the other tower.” as a seventh grader, i had no idea what in the world that meant. i didn’t know what the twin towers were, and i thought so what it fell over who cares. almost immediately overhead of our middle school we heard a loud horrifying noise. it was the sound of fighter jets flying to Camp David. (i live only about 40 minutes to an hour away). they were flying low and they are very very loud. for the end of the school day over the intercom we heard (would so and so report to the office) (because i live in Maryland, many of the students i went to school with had parents that worked for the government- some in the pentagon) and they were pulling their children out of school) at that time my mother worked down the hill from my school and i waited until the end of the day, all activities were canceled, and i walked to her office. I couldn’t understand the devastation until i got home and saw the reports on the television. it was awful, and I remember crying. i know i was confused. nothing made sense.  it still doesn’t make sense to me. to harbor so much hatred.

in a completely unrelated note.

Caster Semenya.

I don’t understand why her gender test needed to be of public record. why they needed to be a national issue. isn’t it enough that this poor woman (and i will continue to call her a woman) is subject to such a humiliation? let alone humiliation that the world knows about.  I’ve never understood issues like this. When Bill Clinton had his affair, wasn’t it an embarrassing enough situation for Hilary without the world knowing and it being a matter of  the public? Even though these situations are very similar in the fact that people are dealing with life changing events in the public eye. they are completely different. this poor girl did NOTHING wrong. she is trying to live her life trying to do something she knew she was good at doing.  it just breaks my heart to think about her. she’s only 18 and will forever have a life clouded by this scandal. i just think that the powers that be could have handled this situation very differently. and thought about the 18 year olds life they were ruining.

Allahpundit is one of the bloggers over at Hot Air.  He posted the following memories of 9/11 on his Twitter account in a series of posts.  Like others have, I’m posting this very moving recollection in it’s entirety in chronological order.

Eight years ago, I remember opening my eyes at 8:46 a.m. in my downtown Manhattan apartment because…

…I thought a truck had crashed in the street outside

I remember pacing my apartment for the next 15 minutes thinking, stupidly, that a gas line might have been hit in the North Tower…

…and then I heard another explosion. I hope no one ever hears anything like it.

All I can say to describe it is: Imagine the sound of thousands of Americans screaming on a city street

It was unbelievable, almost literally

I remember being on the sidewalk and there was an FBI agent saying he was cordoning off the street…

…and then, the next day, when I went back for my cats, they told me I might see bodies lying in front of my apartment building (I didn’t)

We held a memorial service in October for my cousin’s husband, who was “missing” but not really…

He worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. They found a piece of his ribcage in the rubble not too long afterwards.

This is the guy who conspired to murder him: http://is.gd/38h7y

Had a friend from the high school speech and debate team who disappeared from the 105th floor

Had another friend of a friend who worked on the 80th floor or so, married six weeks before the attack…

Speculation is that he was right in the plane’s path, and was killed instantly when it plowed through the building

Did a bit of legal work for a couple whose son worked in the upper floors. Was dating someone else up there at the time…

I was told that she managed to call her parents while they were trapped up there and that the call “was not good”

Never found out if it was cut off by the building collapsing or not

I remember opening my eyes at 8:46 a.m. thinking “I hope that was just a pothole.” Then I heard a guy outside my window say, “Oh shit”

Opened the window, looked to my left, saw huge smoke coming out of the WTC

Left at around 9:30, decided to walk uptown thinking that the buildings would never collapse and that…

…I’d be back in my apartment by the next night. I never went back. It was closed off until December.

I remember thinking when I was a few blocks away that the towers might collapse, and so I walked faster…

…although I sneered at myself later for thinking that might be true and for being a coward. Although not for long.

To this day, you can find photos of thousands of people congregated in the blocks surrounding the Towers, seemingly…

…waiting for them to fall that day

When I got to midtown, rumors were that Camp David and the Sears Tower had also been destroyed. I remember looking around…

…and thinking that we had to get out of Manhattan, as this might be some pretext to get us into the street and hit us with some germ

I callled my dad — and somehow miraculously got through — and told him I was alive, then headed for the 59th street bridge

To this day, the scariest memory is being on that bridge, looking at the Towers smoking in the distance,

and thinking maybe the plotters had wired the bridge too to explode beneath us while we were crossing it.

I remember talking to some guy on the bridge that we’d get revenge, but…

…you had to see the smoke coming from the Towers in the distance. It was like a volcano

I remember being down there two months later. There was a single piece of structure…

…maybe five stories tall of the lattice-work still standing. It looked like a limb of a corpse sticking up out of the ground.

They knocked it down soon after

At my office, which I had just joined, I was told that…

…some people had seen the jumpers diving out the windows to escape the flames that morning

There was a video online, posted maybe two years ago, shot from the hotel across the street,,,

…and it showed roughly 10-12 bodies flattened into panackes lying in the central plaza

Maybe it’s still online somewhere

You have to see it to understand, though. You get a sense of it from the Naudet brothers documentary hearing…

…the explosions as the bodies land in the plaza, but seeing it and hearing it are two different things

I remember after I got over the bridge into Queens, I heard a noise overheard…

…that I’d never heard before. It was an F-15, on patrol over New York. Very odd sound. A high-pitched wheeze.

I remember on Sept. 12, when I got on the train to go downtown and try to get my cats out of the apartment…

…the Village was utterly deserted. No one on the streets. Like “28 Days Later” if you’ve seen that

We made it to a checkpoint and the cop said go no further, until my mom intervened. Then he took pity…

…and agreed to let me downtown IF I agreed that any exposure to bodies lying in the streets was my own fault.

Didn’t see any bodies, but I did see soldiers, ATF, FBI, and so on. The ground was totally covered by white clay…

…which I knew was formed by WTC dust plus water from the FDNY. It look like a moonscape.

There was a firefighter at the intersection and I flagged him down and asked if I could borrow his flashlight, since…

…all buildings downtown had no power. He gave me a pen flashlight.

The doors to my building at Park Place were glass but had kicked in, presumably by the FDNY, to see if there were…

…survivors inside. When I got in there, all power was out. No elevators, no hall lights…

…I had to feel my way to the hall and make my way up to my apartment on the third floor by feeling my way there…

…When I got there, the cats were alive. There was WTC dust inside the apartment, but…

…for whatever reason, I had closed the windows before I left to walk uptown that day, so dust was minimal. I loaded them…

…into the carrier and took them back to Queens. That was the last I could get into the apartment until December 2001,…

…and then it was only to get in, take whatever belongings were salvageable (i.e. not computer), and get out. I lived…

in that apartment from 7/2001 to 9/2001, but given the diseases longtime residents have had…

…I’m lucky I decided to move

My only other significant memory is being in the lobby of the apartment building on 9/11…

…and trying to console some woman who lived there who said her father worked on the lower floors of the WTC. I assume…

…he made it out alive, but she was hysterical as of 9:30 that a.m. Who could blame her?

I do remember feeling embarrassed afterwards that…

…I initially thought the smoke coming out of the North Tower was due to a fire or something, but…

…it’s hard to explain the shock of realizing you’re living through a historical event while you’re living through it.

For months afterwards, I tried to tell people how I thought maybe the Towers…

…were going to be hit by six or seven or eight planes in succession. Which sounds nuts, but once you’re in the moment…

…and crazy shit is happening, you don’t know how crazy that script is about to get.

When I left at 9:30, I thought more planes were coming.

I left because I thought, “Well, if these planes hit the building the right way, it could fall and land on mine.”\

I remember getting to 57th Street and asking some dude, “What happened?”

And he said, “They collapsed” and I couldn’t believe both of them had gone down. Even after the planes hit…

…I remembered that the Empire State Building had taken a hit from a military plane during WWII and still stood tall

So it was never a serious possibility that the WTC would collapse. I assumed…

…that the FDNY would get up there, put out the fire, and the WTC would be upright but with gigantic holes in it

It took an hour for the first tower to go down, 90 minutes for the second.

Even now, despite the smoke, I’m convinced most of the people trapped at the top were alive…

…and waiting, somehow, for a rescue. The couple whose legal case I worked for told me that…

…their son and his GF contacted her father very shortly before the collapse. Which makes sense. As much smoke as there was…

…if you have a five-story hole in the wall to let air in to breathe, you’re going to linger on.

So for many people, the choice probably quickly became: Hang on, endure the smoke, or jump

If you listen to the 911 calls, which I advise you not to do, some of them chose “hang on”

Although needless to say, if you ever saw the Towers…

…you know how dire things must have been up there to make anyone think the better solution was “jump”

They were ENORMOUS.

Another weird memory: Shortly after I got my apartment in lower Manhattan, on Park Place…

…I remember taking my brother to see “The Others,” which had just opened.

And afterwards I remember taking him up to the rooftop of my building to admire the Towers. According to Wikipedia…

“The Others” opened on August 10, 2001, so this must have been within 10 days or so afterwards. Very eerie.

And I remember we also went to Morton’s and Borders right inside the WTC complex to celebrate my new job

That Borders was gutted, needless to say, on 9/11. You could see the frame of the building in the WTC lobby after the attack

I was reading magazines in there the week or two before

One of the weirdest feelings, which I’m sure everyone can share, is that I remember distinctly feeling…

…in the month or two before the attack that “important” news no longer existed. It was all inane bullshit about…

…shark attacks and Gary Condit and overaged pitchers in the Little League World Series. To this day…

…I try never to grumble about a slow news day because the alternative is horrifyingly worse

After the attack, maybe a month after, I remember going to see “Zoolander” in Times Square and…

…coming up out of the subway tunnel having the distinct fear that…

…the sky would light up and a mushroom cloud would appear instantly above my head in my lost moment of consciousness. No joke. In fact…

…I ended up going to bed around 6:30 p.m. for maybe three months after 9/11.

Even when I ended up working downtown for years after that, with a luxurious view of upper Manhattan from the top floors…

…I always feared looking out the window because I was paranoid that at that precise moment, the flash would go off…

…and that’d be the last thing I see. And in fact, for a moment in 2003 when the power went out city-wide,

…I did think that was what was happening. The wages of 9/11.

I leave you with this, my very favorite film about the WTC. If you’re a New Yorker, have a hanky handy. No. 3 is golden http://is.gd/38qsT

One more note: If you’ve never seen a photo of the smoke coming from the Trade Center after the collapse, find one.

Watching it from the 59th bridge, it looked like a volcano. There was so much smoke, it was indescribable. Just *erupting* from the wreckage

Here’s a photo from the United States Coast Guard Flickr account of the smoke after the WTC collapse.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 9/11 Hot Read – Allahpundit remembers 9/11 (norunnyeggs.com)
• 9/11- Impressionist Painting in Words by Allahpundit (iOwnTheWorld.com)
• September 11th: WE MUST NEVER FORGET (SnarkandBoobs.com)
• Quotes of the day: Remembering 9/11/01 (HotAir.com Green Room)

President Obama will be leaving for a Camp David Retreat soon and because of his busy schedule he probably hasn’t had time to prepare an outline of items to discuss. So we did it for him and although the list includes many items – each is very important. This list is provided in advance to allow for the proper allocation of time and the possible addition of needed staff in order to have a successful retreat. Other items may be added later.

Camp David Topics For Discussion

1 Budgeting 101 – Deficits, Debt and the Effects

2 Using Stimulus Funds to Actually Stimulate

3 How to Use Economic Indicators As Feedback

4 Difference Between Tax Rate and Tax Revenue

5 Lessons In Capitalism and Why It Works

6 The Constitution: A Primer

7 The Proper Limitations of Government

8 Recognizing Mobsters At Town Hall Meetings

9 Speaking the Truth: No Clever Strategy Needed

10 Keeping Promises and Restoring the Public Trust

11 Breaking the Addiction to Special Interest Deals

12 Principles of Transparency: When and When Not to Share

13 Stepping Up: Defending Those Who Defend Us

14 Proper Screening, Accountability and the Use of Czars

15 Real Solutions Without Putting Government At The Center

 16 Success In Allowing Others to Fail: People and Companies

17 Timetable for Dropping the Blame Game: It’s Bush’s Fault

Shortlink: http://wp.me/pB0Vf-47

The Presidential Day.

Bus now idling getting ready to leave Blue Heron farm. Pres and farm  apparently kept it low key this morning. Rumor is we’re in for 18 holes of golf at Farm Neck. Status on bus toilet – in operation, but use w utmost discretion.

Arrived at vineyard golf course around 1:20. No confirmation on golfing buds. Obama is said to be special guest of club, since “strict” member policy. Has also left blackberry at home, we hear, since no cells allowed. Cloudy here and slightly cool. Breezes picking up and out of town pool is buzzing about hurricane.

Weather news isn’t great – here’s the forecast for tomorrow.

Showers with thunderstorms likely. Locally heavy rainfall possible. Windy and humid. Near steady temperature in the lower 70s. Southeast winds 15 to 25 mph…increasing to 25 to 30 mph in the afternoon. Gusts up to 40 mph. Chance of rain near 100 percent.

The President, meanwhile, is still in search of the perfect wave, as it were.

After a mid-August trip to America’s national parks and a weeklong vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama plans … to take a little more time away from the office next week.

Obama will head to Camp David on Wednesday, Sept. 2, and stay through the weekend, White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters in a Thursday briefing.

The last couple of months have been a disaster for a presidency begun with so much hope, so it makes sense to get rested up and prepared to start over. But what if he starts to look inappropriate?

Politico reports that the President is taking a vacation after his vacation. Several readers, presumably progressives and liberals who voted for Barack Obama, responded negatively — and with the kind of crude and vulgar name-calling one expects from the right-wing blogosphere — to my Wednesday column knocking the First Family’s Martha’s Vineyard holiday while unemployment heads toward 10 percent and Mr. Obama leaves Congress to grapple with the health care reform. And he’s only been on the job seven months.

As the Obama’s are enjoying there time on Martha’s Vineyard this week, we thought it would interesting to take a walk down memory lane and look back at other former POTUS’ summer vacation hot-spots.  Some partied, some fished, some even did yard-work.

W: According to CBS news, George W. Bush took 149 trips to Camp David (totally 487 days) and 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford, Texas during his presidency (spending nearly all or part of 490 days there). Dubya enjoyed clearing brush and doing other yard work on the ranch. Finally, hard at work.  Of course, a  President cannot truly ever be on vacation. Bush was often accompanied or joined by cabinet staff even on his long stays on the ranch (sort of a mobile White (trash) House, but really…isn’t that a long time to be away from Washington?

Finally doing some real work. W at his ranch in Crawford, Texas in 2002. (Eric Draper/AP / August 9, 2002)

Clinton Years: Former POTUS Bill Clinton and family also vacationed on Martha’s Vineyard. It may be hard to remember, but Clinton was a workaholic and had to be dragged from the Oval Office prior to leaving for his first vacation. Apparently when Clinton arrived on Martha’s Vineyard few hours later, he canceled his scheduled golf game and fell asleep — for nearly 24 hours. For the Clinton’s vacation centered around “Chelsea Time” — but we also know they liked to hob-knob with the likes of  Carly Simon, Ted Danson, Bill Gates and close family friends.

Ahoy!! On a three hour tour with Walter Kronkite. (Photo courtesy of Charles Krupa/AP)

Reagan: The Reagan’s spent his vacations at his Ranch del Cielo in Santa Barbara, California –  spending nearly all or part of 335 days there over his eight-year presidency. And what did he enjoy doing? Chopping trees with a chain saw of course! The Ranch was also known as “the Western White House” and Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 at the ranch and hosted British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth II, and former Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev there.

He works hard for the money! So hard for the money! (Michael Evans/AP)

No discussion of presidential vacations is complete without Camelot. President John F. Kennedy vacationed at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass. and turned it into his summer White House.  Befitting considering that the Kennedy compound was his base for his successful 1960 U.S. Presidential campaign.

Welcome to the good life! (courtesy of the AP)

After wading through the obligatory questions about the Henry Louis Gates’ drama and additional commentary on Health Care reform, President Barack Obama shared an update on his faith in an interview with ABC News. Asked how the presidency is affecting his spiritual life, Obama confessed to Nightline’s Terry Moran that he no longer prays only before bed, as was his habit. “I pray all the time now,” the president laughed. “I’ve got a lot of stuff on my plate and I need guidance all the time.”

One way the president gets guidance from God is through his Blackberry. And while God doesn’t send Obama instant Blackberry messages (because let’s be honest, God probably uses an iPhone), the president’s Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives Director Joshua DuBois does provide daily spiritual direction right in the palm of the president’s hand.

“He has a devotional that he sends to me on my Blackberry each day.” President Obama explained. “That’s how I start my morning. You know, he’s got a passage, scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on.” It’s this type of communication that keeps the president’s faith nurtured and growing while he and the First Family continue their search for a place of worship.

“We haven’t selected a permanent church home in D.C. I mentioned earlier that with all the transitions for the girls, but also, still trying to figure out how to move this big apparatus called the presidency without being hugely disruptive to congregations. How do we time that, how do we think about that? That’s something we’re still sorting out.”

Meanwhile, the Obamas worship at Camp David when they have the chance. Obama praised the service offered at the small chapel, saying, “There’s a wonderful young pastor up there–chaplain–who does just wonderful work.”

Considering all of the resources at the disposal of the President of the United States, it’s fascinating and a bit sobering to see that he still feels a need to draw on a higher power for navigating the tough decisions of his life. Beyond that, it’s humbling to see that the leader of the Free World recognizes his place as an instrument or tool for God’s plans.

Obama summed up his work in vocational terms, saying, “This is something where you just hope that you are aligning your work with His purposes and that you’re attuned to the needs of the people you’re there to serve.”

Click below to watch the video of Terry Moran’s interview with President Barack Obama. His commentary on faith begins around 1:55.

US Presidents have long had a history of informalized meetings to solve world problems; Clinton had Camp David (the summer camp for victim and terrorist alike). Obama only has beer, and beer is how he will seek to resolve the newest crisis gripping the nation and the attention of the president. Some call it Gates-gate (no relation, yet, to the Defense Secretary).

Harvard University professor Henry Gates Jr. was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct while trying to enter his upscale home by police Sgt. Crowley. It would seem that Mr. Gates had forgotten his keys after returning from a trip to China. While no one knows if Sgt. Crowley had operated from a sense or racism or police duty, but the situation has managed to spark a media uproar. President Obama, ever the playground arbiter will attempt to remedy the situation by inviting both parties over to his house, and telling Crowley to tell Gates that he is sorry. After which, beer will be served, most likely in Presidential Edition Stella Artois Glasses by a member of the butler or wait staff of the White House. This will, undoubtedly teach Sgt. Crowley important lessons in race relations not learned in 8^th-grade History class from Mrs. Johnson.

[via ABC]

Unrelated? Rodney King.

My essay is finished. The link is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17693618/The-consequences-of-Israels-territorial-gains-from-the-Six-Day-War-for-peace-with-Egypt

My contention is that the formerly Egyptian territory Israel gained in the Six Day War was the key motivation in Egypt’s signing of the Camp David Accord with Israel, the hardest negotiated concession Israel made and as such, was the principal factor for peace between the two countries. This essay seeks to understand the role Israel’s territorial gains of the Sinai Peninsula and the waterways around it played in securing its peace with Egypt. It will examine Israeli and Egyptian leadership, their decisions, the external influences on their decisions, and the importance of territory in peace negotiations and the Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt. It will focus on the time between the end of the war and the signing of peace treaties, and does not consider ancient Arab and Jewish territorial claims.

I would love to hear feedback, either here or at Scribd.

After consulting with my professor, I have decided that the previous topic was too broad. I went through literally a dozen other research questions and have decided on the following proposal. Again, if my readers can give any feedback, I would really appreciate it.

For my research paper, I will attempt to ascertain how Israel’s territorial gains in the Six Day War led to the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace accords.

Middle East scholars agree that the Six Day War was a momentous occasion for the region, with ramifications far beyond the capture of territory. Perceptions of threats to security in the Middle East, including to Israel’s very existence, have been radically altered. A lasting peace seems to have been attained between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan. Another way of framing this question is, how did perceptions of Israel’s territorial acquisitions from the Six Day War affect peace negotiations? The conclusions of this paper will help us understand how Israel’s two major peace agreements were reached and may help us understand the territorial dimensions of similar, future accords.

To answer this question, I will need to determine the consequences of the acquisitions of the Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In other words, what did Israel’s gains lead to and not lead to? I will also need to look at peace proposals related to territory (“land for peace”) and compare them to the treaties that were eventually signed. This paper will focus almost entirely on the time between the end of the war and the signing of peace treaties, and will not delve into ancient Arab and Jewish territorial claims, except insofar as they affected the parties’ decisions. Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian official positions and perspectives will be an important factor in understanding the extent to which territorial concessions played a role in achieving peace.

Secondary questions therefore include, did Israel’s acquisition of the Sinai lead to its peace accord with Egypt, and if so, how? How were the decisions of leaders such as Anwar al-Sadat and Hussein bin Talal to go to the negotiating table affected by territorial considerations? How important was the captured territory to Israeli leaders? Were they anxious to give it up in return for peace? Did outside actors such as Jimmy Carter, the UN Security Council and the USSR push for territorial bargaining?

In order to understand the influence of Israel’s captured territories on peace, I will divide my essay into the following sections (which may change before the essay is complete):

1)      An introduction to Israel’s territorial acquisitions from the Six Day War and why they are important for answering this question.

2)      A timeline of relevant events between June 10, 1967 and the signing of the peace accords (though this will probably be consigned to an appendix).

3)      Leadership. How did the perspectives of leaders such as Anwar al-Sadat and Menachem Begin on the territorial consequences of the war bring them to the negotiating table? How important was the territory to the leaders? This and the following section could be broken into the subsections of Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

4)      Peace. How are land clauses in proposals for peace similar to those of the treaties eventually signed? What happened during the negotiations focused on land and how were they resolved?