So much media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict, so little quality analysis, so little perspective, so much bias. reading the news on al jazeera and jerusalem post are like reading about two separate conflicts. There is really no point going over the numbers, it is both true and sad that over 300 lebanese have been killed over the last weeks. it is equally true and sad that 1000 people have been murdered and more than 7000 injured by over the past four years of the palestinian intifadas on the israeli side.

perhaps in this conflict people are too focused on numbers, on the various humanitarian crises, the true and the imaginary. the issue is not with the numbers, but with the substantive questions. true, less isrealis have been killed over the incessant years of intifada than palestinians. this is besides the point. the key here is desire. if one people fears or thinks that the other would destroy them if they had the choice, they will react strongly, perhaps overreact. this is not an excuse but simply an obvious explanation of human nature. the programmes which showed palestinians and lebanese and iranians overjoyed at the death and capture of israelis show the strength of this desire, the extent of hatred. the same cannot be said of the other side. perhaps this is my bias, but i cannot imagine many israelis rejoicing if the same fate of met a palestinian or any other citisen of neighbouring arab states. it is this fact that the iranians, the syrians, the palestinians, some lebanese want the israelis (and in some cases the jewish people as a whole) disappeared that matters. it is the fact that if iran and hezbollah could make the katyushas reach precisely the hospitals, the schools or any other civilian infrastructure, they would not blink.

it must be admitted that israel has a more effective military. yes, the IDF can do much more damage than the katuyshas. that is not the issue for it is not the raw numbers that matter, but the intent. the issue of intent is in large part connected the arab media. people in the arab countries would be much better served if they media did not explicitely cater to further inflaming public opinion: for in the long term it does not make their lives any easier. the fact that saudi arabia, jordan, egypt and other gulf states have almost sided with israel on this matter is no negligible sign. perhaps there is a positive externality in some undemocratic tendencies of arab states. 'no' to muslim brotherhood in egypt also means the same to hezbollah in lebanon.

I think it is almost a year that i read reports from baghdad where the journalist is questioning whether this latest bomb is indicative of a civil war in iraq. is this one particularly aweful in that it signals the slidding towards the beginning of an unstoppable conflict? does it signal of a new particularly violent stage?
i am not sure where i am being overly presumptious, but at the expense of being simplistic, is it not obvious as day that there is a civil war in Iraq, that it has been going on for quite some time, and the only obstacle to it becoming something on the scale of darfur in the military presence of the US?
As Clawson suggests in his latest article on the future of Iraw in MERIA, in all the possible scenarious on Iraq, no matter how positive, would put it at 2010 at minimum for the realistic beginning of a reconstruction process. He has a good point when he suggests that there cannot be a long term peace without both sides feeling that they cannot annihilate each other in the absence of international troops. i suppose this is very IR realism-like, but i can see a grain of truth with it. i dont see the south africa reconciliation commission style happening here.

Reading 'the beatiful and the damned' makes me feel complexed. fitzgerald gives english the depth of french of russian, his words create a picture so nuanced as to be difficult to imagine at times. in a way its paradoxical, i have to re-read some lines, while others paint a picture so clear as to make it competitive with visual art. he makes me wonder what happened to contemporary literature, is language atrophying? is evolution of language like evolution of fashion? where are the fitzgeralds of our time? perhaps it is a naive question, but can language, much like fashion, go out of style? if so, i think we might be losing something worthwhile. i can't stop but think that perhaps all these trends, like simple lines in fashion, contemporary art trends (read: squares and circles, at times even overlapping!), 'modern' language is nothing but a elaborate cover-up for a lack of something to say, lack of skill, and maybe even a lack of emotion. looking at the exibit at the modern art museum of paris homme pare, i couldn't help but think that we've regressed. even the gian galianos of this world do not at times compare to the old school craftsmanship, unpretentious, elaborate, timeconsuming, unique. being honest with myself, i wish i could be fitzgerald rather than our contemporaries.