Suggested reading, checking out the lake right now

London Review of Books has published a series of short editorials on the brutality in Gaza. They are interesting and worth reading.

Tariq Ali seems to call for a one-state solution, which is something I don't have an informed opinion about. I think Edward Said is like the only other person in history to have held that position.

"The war on Gaza has killed the two-state solution by making it clear to Palestinians that the only acceptable Palestine would have fewer rights than the Bantustans created by apartheid South Africa."

David Bromwich hits the nail on the head with respect to our inability to grasp (and unwillingness to condemn) the disproportionality here.

Like the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada, the rockets from Gaza were a choice of tactics of a spectacular vengefulness. The spectacle was greater than the damage: no Israeli had been killed by a rocket before the IDF launched their assault. Yet the idea of rockets falling induces terror, whereas the idea of an army invading a neighbouring territory has an official sound. The numbers of the dead – as of 15 January, more than 1000 Palestinians and fewer than 20 Israelis – tell a different story. Many people remain unmoved by the tremendous disproportion because they cannot get the image of rockets out of their heads.

Further, he makes this statement about Obama.

The unhappy message of his recent utterances has been reconciliation without truth; and reconciliation, above all, for Americans. This preference for bringing-together over bringing-to-light is a trait of Obama’s political character we are only now coming to see the extent of. It is an element – until lately an unperceived element – of a certain native moderation of temper that is likely to mark his presidency. Yet his silence on Gaza has been startling, even immoderate.

Conor Gearty (never heard of him) says something more hopeful about Obama, and then goes on to trot out a list of possible U.S. actions that would only happen in a Utopian dreamland.

"It is just possible the killings in Gaza may mark the end of Israel’s disastrous plunge into militant Zionism. The key is Obama: will he collapse under pressure like most of his predecessors, or is there more to him? Let us assume he knows how senseless it is for the US to collude in a crime of the kind going on in Gaza."

R.W. Johnson's (also never heard of him) contribution is maybe the best - pessimistic about Obama, brings in some explanation of why it happened which I think is useful.

The present crisis was probably unavoidable given (a) Iran’s position, (b) the coming Israeli election and (c) the failure of Israel to achieve full-scale victory over Hizbullah last year. That last factor has weighed on all minds, showing Iran how much leverage it had, threatening to turn all Arab-occupied land into rocket-launching grounds and increasing Israeli determination to show that this is a prohibitively expensive option for anyone who opts to host such an exercise. The stalemate seems complete.

I doubt whether Obama will make much difference. His chief of staff is an ex-Israeli soldier and his administration will be heavily in hock to the Israel lobby from day one. Israel may be unhappy that he will talk to Hamas but this unhappiness is quite unnecessary. He is not going to soft-talk them into accepting Israel’s existence and laying down their rockets, so what will such talks really change?

The real key remains US-Iran relations.

With respect to that last one . . . does anyone know what Rahm Emanuel did for Israel? People say he was in the IDF, several sources online say he "volunteered for the IDF in the Gulf War," which means something like nothing, and I've also heard that he basically made bricks or something f0r the IDF on a volunteer basis. His Wikipedia page says nothing at all about it.

Related - what about that missing digit? I've heard he lost it in a bar brawl, that he lost it making bricks or something for the IDF on a volunteer basis, and from his Wikipedia page that he lost it working at Arby's. It seems Rahm is a mystery man of the highest order. However, it is quite clear that he is a vile person who helped turn the Democratic Party into the center wing of the GOP in the '90's. I hope he goes away sooner rather than later.

Anyway, check out the London Review of Books link.

I'm at Lago Atitlan right now, and it is quite beautiful. A bit of advice if you ever come here: don't go to San Pedro. It is over run with Ras-Trent and company, as well as their German co-dreads, Ras-Hans and Ras-Gretel. It's really not even worth stopping there, except to rent a kayak. I think Santa Cruz seems a little bit nicer.

.

Maybe McCain would be skin cancer?

So I´m sitting in the Internet room at the language school, having just lost a game of foosball by one point.

Stayed last night at Las Casas de las Amigas, and would recommend to anyone. The Americans that stay there tend to be sort of annoying from what I could tell, but the people who run the place are great, and it´s laid back and guests have access to a stove. Spent much of the evening yesterday dining and talking with the Joshua Tree-burnout set, which was taxing. You know, the people who wear bells around their ankles, and talk all the time about how terrible American politics are but refuse to actually follow politics or even read a newspaper, and criticize everyone for their livelihoods, and think that Guatemalans need to stop drinking Coke right now because it´s just not sustainable? Those people. Fortunately no trust-afarians. (Shout out to Eric.)

At one point this guy said that voting in 2008 was like choosing between cancer and AIDS, which seemed like a really bizarre metaphor. If you read a newspaper you would see that it was choosing between a guy who wants to occasionally talk to Iran and someone who sings songs about bombing Iran. I´m not sure which of those viewpoints counts as cancer and which counts as AIDS? Or maybe abortion: pro-life is cancer and pro-choice is AIDS? Stem cell research? Evolution? Maybe some things don´t need to be metaphors, and can actually just be Obama versus McCain? Anyway, I can see why you would want to look at the world in simple terms if you secretly feel guilty that you live off your rich ex-pat parents´money and pretend to be ¨helping the Guatemalan people¨all the time, when you´re actually just drinking for free at your girlfriend´s uncle´s bar. Different strokes, I guess.

Had a really interesting conversation this morning about the political situation in Guatemala, with a woman named Ingrid who runs La Casa de las Amigas. She was explaining how there is no viable leftist political party in Guatemala, and that after the peace accord in 1996, the guerillas were not allowed to become a legit party, as the FMLN did in El Salvador (or sort of like Sinn Fein/IRA in Ireland, or maybe like what Hamas is trying to do in Palestine). She said four groups did unite under the banner of leftist URNG, but that this party has no money. She also said that there all of the newspapers in Guatemala slant to the right.

Ingrid was incredibly tolerant of my abysmal Spanish. I asked about her German name and she said that her grandfather was from Germany. I guess lots of Germans came here after independence from Spain, in the late 19th and early 20th century. She said she didn´t know why. I don´t know why either, but I´ve read about it before - I guess they left their mark architecturally. I asked a couple Germans that I met here about it, and they said they don´t know but they intend to find out. Anyone know about the mystery Germans in Guatemala?

I think the beer here is basically German as well. One in particular, El Gallo, is also owned by one of the seven families that is said to own most of Guatemala. Or so I heard from an American. I´m guessing it´s true.