One more note for today. The US State Department - as part of the Hasbara campaign mentioned below put out a postion paper arguing how the US was basically enabled by the UN Security Council. Discusses the role of the UNSC in the crisis as the Americans see it. Isn't interesting that we haven't heard about phone calls to Guinea, Angola and Chile in the last few days...

So, a week has gone by. Is that alot or a little? The US seems to be putting out lots of hasbara (shock and awe, humanitarian aid, "imbedded" reporters, leaflets, rebellions in Basra) and very little in terms of signs of winning. I have to say that I find this frustrating because the results of an undecisive war are a bit scary to me. Only military strength does not win wars -- at least since June 1967 -- in the Middle East. That should be obvious to everyone. A few pix of humanitarian aid (where did it come from? The port is not yet secure!) won't change minds.

Then again, what will change minds? Will an end to occupation here change minds of Palestinians? And, in the end... what did we "win" in 1967? Aren't we still paying the price of that war today?

I've written a bit this week about the US and the Third Geneva Convention. It is interesting to note that the British (and Australians) are parties to the 1977 First Protocol which offers significantly wider POW rights and obligations. Will be interesting to see how they deal with that. Is every individual with a weapon to be a POW?

A friend of Mr. Kesher from Geneva (the home of the world current greatest oxymoron: the Libyan chaired Commission of Human Rights) asks how an Israeli could be interested in the fate of the Mets. While it is certainly a deep philosophical question going into the issues of Ed Kranepool, Felix Millan, Jesse Orosco and Tug McGraw and their relative roles in the development of humanity, I think it comes down to the fact that Shea Stadium is a crummy place, blue and orange are awful colors and the team are usually losers but that 1969 and 1986 were so glorious that the question might be - how could one like any other team? 4 days to opening day.

So, a week has gone by. Is that alot or a little? The US seems to be putting out lots of hasbara (shock and awe, humanitarian aid, "imbedded" reporters, leaflets, rebellions in Basra) and very little in terms of signs of winning. I have to say that I find this frustrating because the results of an undecisive war are a bit scary to me. Only military strength does not win wars -- at least since June 1967 -- in the Middle East. That should be obvious to everyone. A few pix of humanitarian aid (where did it come from? The port is not yet secure!) won't change minds.

Then again, what will change minds? Will an end to occupation here change minds of Palestinians? And, in the end... what did we "win" in 1967? Aren't we still paying the price of that war today?

I've written a bit this week about the US and the Third Geneva Convention. It is interesting to note that the British (and Australians) are parties to the 1977 First Protocol which offers significantly wider POW rights and obligations. Will be interesting to see how they deal with that. Is every individual with a weapon to be a POW?

A friend of Mr. Kesher from Geneva (the home of the world current greatest oxymoron: the Libyan chaired Commission of Human Rights) asks how an Israeli could be interested in the fate of the Mets. While it is certainly a deep philosophical question going into the issues of Ed Kranepool, Felix Millan, http://ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0295and Tug McGraw and their relative roles in the development of humanity, I think it comes down to the fact that Shea Stadium is a crummy place, blue and orange are awful colors and the team are usually losers but that 1969 and 1986 were so glorious that the question might be - how could one like any other team? 4 days to opening day.

Today's New York Times asked some of the same questions about the US and the Geneva Convention that I asked on Monday. Similar article appeared yesterday in Slate. I think that the Bush Administration, like Israel, has to be careful in screaming about international law when it serves our interest. At the same time we have to watch when our advisaries often try to use IL as a bludgeon. How often is the threat of war crimes, UN resolutions, the 4th Geneva Convention tossed about by those who have either no threats to handle (read: northern European) or no compuntion about ignoring any rules when it is inconvenient. (read: Arabs and non alligned movement).
What do you think of the "imbedded" reporters? We should do that! It would be harder here because of the urban nature and the fact that you can film a terrorist driving towards a suicide bombing or building weapons inside a home. A risk was noted by Jack Schafer in Slate. He liked the idea but warned, near the end:
The true test of the embed program will come when—and if—those video notes reveal something the Pentagon would rather you not see: an advancing Marine unit greased by an artillery shell; a bloody friendly-fire incident; or, knock on wood, a Geneva Convention violation by U.S. troops. All these examples are possible, and some are likely. The propaganda tide could shift and cause the Pentagon to rue the day they heard the word "embed."
Stay tuned. We'll see in a few days once the Battle of Baghdad begins.

Yesterday was a hard day for Americans. It was a day for relecting that even the world's hegemon is made up of people - who are terrified when sitting in front of Iraqis with guns. They were tough visuals but the questions were not humiliating. It was intereting that the US screamed Third Geneva Convention violation. What about Gitmo? When did the Bushies care about strict enforcement of international law? Then again - who REALLY cares?
I am still convinced that the war will be short and successful for the good guys but PR of the weak is tough to face down. There are many reminders of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here: the misuse of claims of international law by Iraq, the use of human shields, the need for the US to care more about the lives of the locals then their leaders do, the power of the media to show individual stories against a huge military and the natural tendancy to side with the individual.
Should the Americans choose or have to fight within Bahgdad, the pictures and story lines may look like Nablus and Jenin. As Israel knows, the burden of proof for the (perceived) strong is obscenely high. Another connection to us is the questions about how secure western Iraq is. On the one hand, we are feeling relatively safe (I haven't carried my gas mask since Thursday night, nor, if Israeli TV is right is anyone else) but if Sadaam gets desperate...
On the local front, there is no local front. No news. No politicians. Nothing. Local news sounds like CNN in Hebrew with one or two local stories (such as no ministers carrying gas masks). There is something liberating about not hearing about the domestic issues of the struggling economy (although the Shekel has gained strength since the war began), religioous-secular debates or road map matters. As for the road map - it is coming. See article in today's Haaretz. It will be interesting to see if it will be a repeat of the period after the first Gulf War when George Bush the First and James Baker forced the locals to go to Madrid for a peace conference. Here, George II may force the sides to accept the road map. Madrid led nowhere really (but Oslo did) because the sides (read: Shamir and Assad) weren't ready. Are Sharon, Assad the Younger and Abu Maazan/Arafat any more ready?

Looks like David Cone is going to make the team and injuries may make him the #4 starter. It is always good that there still are baseball players older then me. Keeps the illusion alive for another season as long as the Cones, Oroscos, Jordans and Jerry Rices are still out there. Then again Springsteen is doing nearly three hour shows two or three nights a week (he even played Rosalita in Sydney the other night). He is 53 and I feel old watching him in comparison.