For people who have a hard time listening...

From President Obama's AIPAC speech today:

“Let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday,” Mr. Obama said in firm tones at one point, “not what I was reported to have said.”

“I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

The president emphasized the “mutually agreed swaps,” then went into an elaboration of what he believes that means. Mr. Netanyahu, in his critique of Mr. Obama’s remarks, had ignored the “mutually agreed swaps” part of the president’s proposal.

“Since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means,” Mr. Obama said. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.”

“There was nothing particularly original in my proposal,” he said. “This basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations.”

Oscars: Best Picture nominees

This year I've managed to see all of the movies that the Academy has nominated for Best Picture. I won't venture a prediction, but here are my thoughts on all ten of them, in the order I saw them (as best as I can remember).

The Kids Are All Right *****

This was the only one of the bunch to which I gave five stars (with a couple of exceptions, I rated all of the movies on my Netflix account within 24 hours of seeing the movie, and I used those ratings in this post). Still, it's not my top pick...

While watching it, the Julianne Morore-Mark Ruffalo story line made me angry, angry enough to want to get up and walk out. But even in the moment I sensed that that emotional involvement was a good thing.

I thought Annette Benning was perfect in her role, as good as she's ever been, and I'd be happy to see her win Best Actress.

Overall, I loved it.

Inception **

I walked out wondering, "Why do they think they have to try so hard?" I wasn't impressed, and it seemed like yet another movie that attempts to achieve something by going way over the top. Style over substance. Yes, very intricate. But I just didn't care about the Leonardo DiCaprio character or his relationship with his wife, so who cares? Yawn.

The Social Network ***

I wasn't a fan of Mark Zuckerberg when I walked in, and I cared even less for him when I walked out. But the movie was great; I loved the pace, the relentless progress forward. Web-time, indeed. And I agreed with an article I read about the movie when it came out (sorry, can't find the link): the movie serves as a generational litmus test. To some people, the Zuckerberg character in the movie is a clod and a jerk, entirely annoying. To younger folk, he has more of a "heroic" quality because of his accomplishments. Unfortunately, this apparently makes me "old" despite working in Silicon Valley all those years...

With regard to the real Facebook, which like Apple has become less and less appealing with time, my attitude shifted a bit after listening to a CNN interview with Google marketing exec Wael Ghonim who volunteered that "this [Egyptian] revolution started on Facebook."

Black Swan ****

I haven't been much of a Natalie Portman fan (Padmé Amidala, ugh), but she was totally convincing in Black Swan. Like most of my favorites on this list, this was a difficult movie to watch (crazy how self-mutilation as minor as ripping off a tiny patch of skin can twist me up in contortions in my theater seat). The movie had a lot of cohesive layers; overall, it just worked for me. Creepy, unflinching, and ultimately... completely, poetically satisfying. It breathed new life into Swan Lake the way Rent did for La Bohème.

This was the first of the movies I saw and said afterwards, "This gets my vote."

Toy Story 3 ***

I cried. And yes, it speaks to the challenges of aging. But as someone who is aging, it didn't move me all that much. I sort of had a, "Well, yes, it's more Toy Story" reaction.

The King's Speech ****

I cried. Awesome performances from Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, and Helena Bonham Carter. Really moving. But I wouldn't name it Best Picture, though it's the odds-on favorite.

Winter's Bone ***

As a native of a small midwestern town, there was a wee bit too much familiarity in this one. It left me glad that I hadn't lived through anything quite as desperate as the story portrayed in the movie. Well done. But again, just didn't feel like a Best Picture to me.

True Grit ****

After seeing this, I changed my Best Picture vote from Black Swan. Hailee Steinfeld was brilliant and left me wanting more... as in, "Please don't flame out like so many actors who start young!"

Everything that happened after the rattlesnake bite was "heavy"... not emotionally so but a demontration of gravity. In other words, it left me with the sense that there was just no other course that Mattie Ross' life could have taken (I didn't know the story from the book or earlier movie.)

And yes, I cried.

127 Hours ****

I changed my vote for a second time after seeing James Franco's awesome performance in that chasm. I knew the story well from listening to a long interview with the real life Aron Ralston, and I'm an EMT who was trained to deal with the gory... both of which probably made it more difficult to sit still in my chair than it otherwise might have been. Talk about feeling dread and anxiety.

This gets my vote for Best Picture because it's a movie that takes you somewhere where you've never been... and will probably never go. I couldn't help but imagine myself in his situation...

The Fighter ****

I can't resist Mark Wahlberg in anything, which goes without saying. :-) But his whole Ward family in the movie... Jesuchristo, scary! Christian Bale was utterly spot on... his winning the Best Supporting Actor is my only non-negotiable in the acting categories, lol.

No tears but I couldn't help but cheer at the end.

ALL IN ALL, it was a great year of movies. I'd recommend all of the above except Inception. Enjoy. :-)

Blunt feedback to Israel from the State Department

From the New York Times:

In a tense, 43-minute phone call on Friday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a “deeply negative signal” about Israeli-American relations, and not just because it spoiled a visit by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Biden, in Israel this week to declare American support for its security, had already condemned the move as undermining the peace process. But Mrs. Clinton went a good deal further in her conversation with Mr. Netanyahu, saying it had harmed “the bilateral relationship,” according to the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley.

Such blunt language toward Israel is very rare from an American administration, and several officials said Mrs. Clinton was relaying the anger of President Obama at the announcement, which was made by Israel’s Interior Ministry and which Mr. Netanyahu said caught him off guard.

The Israeli leader repeated his surprise about the plan to Mrs. Clinton, a senior official said, and apologized again for the timing. But that did not appear to mollify Mrs. Clinton, who said she “could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security,” Mr. Crowley said.
Hours after the phone call, Israel was again condemned for the plan in a statement issued by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, which work together in a group known as the Middle East quartet to mediate Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

The Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael B. Oren, was summoned to the State Department on Friday by the deputy secretary of state, James B. Steinberg, a senior American official said. The Israeli Embassy declined to comment on Friday evening.

The coordinated moves were a remarkable show of displeasure by the Obama administration, which has been rebuffed in its yearlong effort to persuade Israel to freeze construction of settlements as a first step toward reviving the long-stalled peace talks. Mr. Obama has been personally involved, discussing the matter with Mrs. Clinton in their regularly scheduled Oval Office meeting on Thursday.

Those West Bank settlements

I agree with the administration: it's time to get tough with Israel regarding their failure to end the growth of existing and new settlements in the West Bank. Israel committed to doing so years ago, but they've taken little action.

“Time is of the essence,” Mr. Obama said. “We can’t continue with the drift and the increased fear on both sides, the sense of hopelessness that we’ve seen for too many years now. We need to get this thing back on track.”

Mr. Obama reiterated his call for a halt to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and said he expected a response soon from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

Mr. Obama’s words echoed — albeit less bluntly — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brusque call on Wednesday for a complete freeze of construction in settlements on the West Bank. In expansive language that left no wiggle room, Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Obama “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.”

Her comments took Israeli officials by surprise.

More from the New York Times.

Freeman post-mortem

Charles Freeman had this to say after withdrawing his name from nomination to head the National Intelligence Council:

"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East," he wrote.

"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."

And:

"I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so," he wrote. "This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."

Full post-mortem from Ben Smith at Politico here.

I'm actually a bit dismayed about the Obama administration's failure to make the case for and defend Freeman. If his expertise and intelligence qualified him to head the NIC--and if Obama is dedicated to changing Washington--more effort should have been made to counter the arguments that were lobbed against him.

Glenn Greenwald on the Freeman withdrawal

From his Salon.com blog:

In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined.

Andrew Sullivan on the Freeman withdrawal

From the Daily Dish:

The second [thing worth noting] is that Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.

Our unquestioning policy towards Israel

The U.S. can support Israel without having to reflexively back every one of their actions. While the American public was split roughly 50-50 in whether they approved of Israel's recent invasion of the Gaza Strip, the Senate unanimously backed a resolution supporting the Israeli incursion, and only five Members of Congress dissented.

Now Charles Freeman, an otherwise well-qualified former ambassador--chosen by Obama to lead the National Intelligence Council--is being labeled an extremist because he is willing to ask tough questions about America's interests in the Middle East and how they intersect with Israel's.

I've read a fair amount about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including all 800 pages of Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001), and I also have a personality that is open to seeing most situations from more than one perspective. While I have tremendous sympathy for the plight of the European Jews in the 20th century and am well aware of the horrors that have been witnessed inside Israel, I can't simply ignore the plight of the Palestinians. Historical grievances have weight, yet contemporary ones must outweight them. Balancing the competing needs to recognize how we've gotten to where we are and facing the realities of today is essential. I know I don't have the answer, but I'm confident it can't be found by only addressing the concerns of one of the two parties in conflict. In order for our nation to play a role in the Middle East process, we have to be willing to listen to both sides... and willing to ask tough questions.

Freeman seems like the kind of guy who can do that.

More background from Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, and Andrew Sullivan.

UPDATE: Immediately after completing this post, I saw that Freeman has withdrawn his name from nomination. Sad.

Obama's first televised interview since the inauguration

Obama has given his first interview to Al-Arabiya, an Arab television network. An excerpt:

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries ... the largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.

Ladies and gentleman, we do, indeed, have a new president. Watch the full interview:

(Video link)

Thank to the Daily Dish.

100 years of conflict...

The Economist has a good piece on the century-old conflict that is burning bright even today in Gaza:

And Gaza, remember, is only one item in a mighty catalogue of misery, whose entries are inscribed in tears. The Jews and Arabs of Palestine have been fighting off and on for 100 years. In 1909 the mostly Russian socialist idealists of the Zionist movement set up an armed group, Hashomer, to protect their new farms and villages in Palestine from Arab marauders. Since then has come the dismal march of wars—1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006 and now 2009—each seared by blood and fire into the conflicting myths and memories of the two sides. The intervals between the wars have not been filled by peace but by bombs, raids, uprisings and atrocities. Israeli settlers in Hebron today still cite, as if it were yesterday, the massacre of Hebron’s Jews in 1929. The Arabs of Palestine still remember their desperate revolt in the 1930s against the British mandate and Jewish immigration from Europe, and the massacres of 1948.

The slaughter this week in Gaza, in which on one day alone some 40 civilians, many children, were killed in a single salvo of Israeli shells, will pour fresh poison into the brimming well of hate (see article). But a conflict that has lasted 100 years is not susceptible to easy solutions or glib judgments. Those who choose to reduce it to the “terrorism” of one side or the “colonialism” of the other are just stroking their own prejudices. At heart, this is a struggle of two peoples for the same patch of land. It is not the sort of dispute in which enemies push back and forth over a line until they grow tired. It is much less tractable than that, because it is also about the periodic claim of each side that the other is not a people at all—at least not a people deserving sovereign statehood in the Middle East.

They end on this note:

There is a limit, however. Taking Hamas down a peg is one thing. But even in the event of Israel “winning” in Gaza, a hundred years of war suggest that the Palestinians cannot be silenced by brute force. Hamas will survive, and with it that strain in Arab thinking which says that a Jewish state does not belong in the Middle East. To counter that view, Israel must show not only that it is too strong to be swept away but also that it is willing to give up the land—the West Bank, not just Gaza—where the promised Palestinian state must stand. Unless it starts doing that convincingly, at a minimum by freezing new settlement, it is Palestine’s zealots who will flourish and its peacemakers who will fall back into silence. All of Israel’s friends, including Barack Obama, should be telling it this.

After 9/11, I wanted to know more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I read Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 which is long but worth the time.

SOMEHOW this tiny strip of land has become an intersection for so much of the worst in humanity: genocide, feelings of guilt, religious extremism, colonialism, intolerance, and on and on. (The genocide and guilt references refer to the Holocaust, not anything specifically happening in Israel or the Occupied Territories... have to be clear on that lest I invite too much criticism! As Meghan McArdle recently wrote, part of the problem with this particular ongoing conflict is that "one is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.")