Take 2.3 million people.
(For perspective,that’s bigger than the population of 80 countries.)
Put them in an area measuring less than 450,000 sq meters.
(For perspective, that’s smaller than Vatican City, which is the smallest country in the world and has a total of 800 citizens.)
Keep them there for at least a week.
Finally,take H1N1 – the much-feared,super-contagious swine flu currently sweeping the world.
Ingredients for disaster – but the miracle is that in the Hajj this year, there was no mass outbreak, with were only 5 deaths and 73 proven cases of swine flu. Regrettable, but arguably unavoidable – and by any standards, I will say that it is a remarkable figure given the circumstances. Let’s put that into perspective.
5 fatalities/approx. 2,300,000 people = 0.0002% fatalities
73 cases of swine flu/2,300,000 = 0.003% swine flu victims
Tell me that’s not incredible.
(Note: The deaths included four people over the age of 70 with pre-existing illnesses that made them more vulnerable to disease – and the Saudi government had publicly requested governments not to send elderly citizens and pilgrims this year. One of the girls was a 17 year old – also previously ill and therefore susceptible.)
An interesting summary of Pakistan’s history by a former cop in Balochistan:
Uplifting and upsetting at the same time – our country’s tale definitely has been a sad one, but it has lived on because of people like him.
Webster Tarpley offers his thoughts on what’s happening in the region:
Alarming, but..implausible. This game is too big to be kept under wraps and successfully be concealed from so many people for so long. Too many people have known too much for too long. Plus, Tarpley is a little too sensational for my taste after I read his take on the Fort Hood massacre.
(Now we know where Zaid Hamid gets his inspiration from.)
And Jeremy Scahill brings out the most explosive story on Pakistan since Seymour Hersh’s Defending the Arsenal.
My thoughts on Scahill’s piece are, briefly, that it’s possible that there’s a bunch of renegade ex-CIA men operating in Pakistan with the knowledge and official disapproval (but implicit approval through official ignorance) from people in both governments. However, it makes little sense that there would be full-fledged government support for these programs, because both Pakistan and America suffer, as Gundun notes. the conspiracy theorists in Pakistan are still a long way off from reality – the troubles in Pakistan derive not from evil geniuses plotting to destroy the country, but from the flaws within – corruption, poor governance, weak institutions, short-term thinking as a nation, and more. How does one correct mistakes that don’t exist?
Ahmed Rashid has similar views in his article in BBC News:
Pakistan cannot tackle its real problems unless the country’s leaders – military and civilian – first admit that much of the present crisis is a result of long-standing mistakes, the lack of democracy, the failure to strengthen civic institutions and the lack of investment in public services like education, even as there continues to be a massive investment in nuclear weapons and the military.
Pakistan’s crisis must first be acknowledged by officialdom and the media before solutions can be found. The alternative is a continuation of the present paralysis where people are left confused, demoralised and angry.
As Sadiq Saleem points out, the reason Indo-American relations have grown so warm recently compared to Pak-American relations is our own obsession with ‘honor’ and insecure thought processes – most recently, the ‘Blame America’ game. But the Americans haven’t done much to dispel that notion and calm Pakistani fears, have they?
Obama’s decision regarding Afghanistan takes on even more significance in this context – influences from all sides are clearly pressing him, which is why this decision has been delayed so long…but trying to make everyone happy might just prove to be futile.
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Yes, the images are irrelevant but the sound quality is good. This could be a conspiracy theorist anthem (and it is on Youtube) but it fits my message pretty well too – a little reflection would not be amiss.
The story of the underdog is a perennial favorite amongst audiences worldwide – there’s nothing like a victory against the odds to raise the spirits, as evidenced by the joyous reaction of Pakistani civil society to their World Twenty20 win in June. In times of difficulty, this tale of triumph over adversity gains even more appeal as more people relate to the context – Seabiscuit and Jim Braddock, for example, symbolized the struggles of America during the first Great Depression.
Equally popular is the fallen hero – celebrity misdeeds occupy a great deal of press coverage as it is, and everyone has an opinion on a tainted legacy – for many, the French legend Zinedine Zidane is remembered not for his match-winning headers against Brazil in the 1998 World Cup Final, but with his header into the chest of Marco Materazzi in the 2006 Final.
Combine the two, and there’s a recipe for an explosion of huge proportions. When the underdogs from Ireland were going into a winner-goes-to-World-Cup against heavyweights (and previous finalists) France, no one could have predicted that living legend Thierry Henry would stain his record with a blatant handball that directly led to the winning goal. With spice added on by the fact that Michel Platini, the president of the European football association, is a Frenchman, conspiracy theorists around the world had a field day.
In 1986 it was the Hand of God when Maradona exacted revenge against the English; in 2009 it has been the Hand of Gaul that knocked out the Irish. 23 years have passed and we are no farther on. There was not only evidence but also admission of guilt both then and now – and the fact that the outcome has been the same both times is a disgrace.
The world has changed dramatically and football must adapt with it. The calls for modification that purists scoff upon must be translated into action after this latest travesty, for the game has already undergone change over the past few decades. The days of ferocious, take-no-prisoner defenders such as the Italian Claudio Gentile (famous for being anything but gentle) are more or less over. The last great Frenchman with a tainted legacy, Zidane, was red-carded after his infamous outburst was missed by referee Horacio Elizondo and reported by assistant referee Luis Medina Cantalejo through headset. And this year, UEFA is testing the concept of goal-line referees in the Europa League (previously the UEFA Cup).
In that context, a system to reduce the unfair results such as the one last week should be introduced. It is in the interest of the beautiful game to maintain a tradition of meritocracy and, yes, provide a level playing field. Giovanni Trappatoni’s men were denied the chance to take part in the biggest sporting spectacle in the world, and a whole nation has been temporarily alienated from the sport, turning away in disgust at the injustice conferred upon their heroes by a combination of cheating, human error, damningly, archaic rules.
For cheating and human error will forever remain part of sport as an institution, and there is little short of obsessive monitoring that any authority can do to prevent it. The rules, though, can and should change.
Arguments against the use of technology in football are centered around the assumption that replays would bring disruptions to the flow of the game, as well as take away the unpredictability of the human element. However, cricket and tennis have shown that video replays are often inconclusive (another criticism of them) and that DOES assure human and not robotic decision making. In addition, the usage of replays can be carefully restricted to ensure that games are played in full flow.
One suggestion for FIFA is to introduce instantaneous video replays for assistant referees and limit their usage to reviews at half-time and full-time to decide whether any retroactive decisions should be made. Furthermore, these reviews should be exclusively for match-changing decisions such as red cards, penalties, and yes, handballs leading to goals. Goal-line referees are another good idea for they maintain human decision making and do use technology as well (albeit minimally).
For this specific situation, Henry could be fined or banned for a few fixtures (both international and domestic, which possibly takes him out of El Clasico – heavy punishment indeed!) based on video evidence as well as his own statement. Interestingly, the striker has stated that a replay would be fair to Ireland and has been supported by many big names, such as Roy Keane, David Beckham, and Patrick Vieira. In any case, actions taken by the governing body now would help prove that FIFA is serious about promoting fair results and taking positive steps to improve decision making.
The Hand of Gaul
The story of the underdog is a perennial favorite amongst audiences worldwide – there’s nothing like a victory against the odds to raise the spirits, as evidenced by the joyous reaction of Pakistani civil society to their World Twenty20 win in June. In times of difficulty, this tale of triumph over adversity gains even more appeal as more people relate to the context – Seabiscuit and Jim Braddock, for example, symbolized the struggles of America during the first Great Depression.
Equally popular is the fallen hero – celebrity misdeeds occupy a great deal of press coverage as it is, and everyone has an opinion on a tainted legacy – for many, the French legend Zinedine Zidane is remembered not for his match-winning headers against Brazil in the 1998 World Cup Final, but with his header into the chest of Marco Materazzi in the 2006 Final.
Combine the two, and there’s a recipe for an explosion of huge proportions. When the underdogs from Ireland were going into a winner-goes-to-World-Cup against heavyweights (and previous finalists) France, no one could have predicted that living legend Thierry Henry would stain his record with a blatant handball that directly led to the winning goal. With spice added on by the fact that Michel Platini, the president of the European football association, is a Frenchman, conspiracy theorists around the world had a field day.
Image Credit: The Telegraph
In 1986 it was the Hand of God when Maradona exacted revenge against the English; in 2009 it has been the Hand of Gaul that knocked out the Irish. 23 years have passed and we are no farther on. There was not only evidence but also admission of guilt both then and now – and the fact that the outcome has been the same both times is a disgrace.
The world has changed dramatically and football must adapt with it. The calls for modification that purists scoff upon must be translated into action after this latest travesty, for the game has already undergone change over the past few decades. The days of ferocious, take-no-prisoner defenders such as the Italian Claudio Gentile (famous for being anything but gentle) are more or less over. The last great Frenchman with a tainted legacy, Zidane, was red-carded after his infamous outburst was missed by referee Horacio Elizondo and reported by assistant referee Luis Medina Cantalejo through headset. And this year, UEFA is testing the concept of goal-line referees in the Europa League (previously the UEFA Cup).
In that context, a system to reduce the unfair results such as the one last week should be introduced. It is in the interest of the beautiful game to maintain a tradition of meritocracy and, yes, provide a level playing field. Giovanni Trappatoni’s men were denied the chance to take part in the biggest sporting spectacle in the world, and a whole nation has been temporarily alienated from the sport, turning away in disgust at the injustice conferred upon their heroes by a combination of cheating, human error, damningly, archaic rules.
For cheating and human error will forever remain part of sport as an institution, and there is little short of obsessive monitoring that any authority can do to prevent it. The rules, though, can and should change.
Arguments against the use of technology in football are centered around the assumption that replays would bring disruptions to the flow of the game, as well as take away the unpredictability of the human element. However, cricket and tennis have shown that video replays are often inconclusive (another criticism of them) and that DOES assure human and not robotic decision making. In addition, the usage of replays can be carefully restricted to ensure that games are played in full flow.
One suggestion for FIFA is to introduce instantaneous video replays for assistant referees and limit their usage to reviews at half-time and full-time to decide whether any retroactive decisions should be made. Furthermore, these reviews should be exclusively for match-changing decisions such as red cards, penalties, and yes, handballs leading to goals. Goal-line referees are another good idea for they maintain human decision making and do use technology as well (albeit minimally).
For this specific situation, Henry could be fined or banned for a few fixtures (both international and domestic, which possibly takes him out of El Clasico – heavy punishment indeed!) based on video evidence as well as his own statement. Interestingly, the striker has stated that a replay would be fair to Ireland and has been supported by many big names, such as Roy Keane, David Beckham, and Patrick Vieira. In any case, actions taken by the governing body now would help prove that FIFA is serious about promoting fair results and taking positive steps to improve decision making.
It’s been another of those months for Pakistan; one where the team swings wildly between confident victory and abject defeat. Really, it’s getting slightly boring now, the sheer predictability of Team Pakistan’s fates – as the cliché goes, they are always unpredictable.
Nowhere is that unpredictability better illustrated than the activity and subsequent inactivity of captain-apparent Younis Khan. It was difficult enough handing him the captaincy after he walked out on it years ago in Nasim Ashraf’s tenure as chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board. Shoaib Malik’s failures to establish his authority ultimately handed the proud Pathan the reins, and he responded with a Twenty20 World Cup win that raised the spirits of a nation and awoke patriotism in Pakistanis from all corner of the world. Pakistan seemed to be on the rise again with a series of dominating displays in a format that could have been designed for the team.
The joy was to be short-lived as it was only a matter of one indifferent Sri Lanka tour and a semifinal defeat in the Champions Trophy before questions were being asked back home about the commitment of the team. In indignant (and in most eyes, justified) protest, Younis announced his resignation on the spot. With the majority of public opinion in Pakistan still backing him, the board convinced the volatile captain to return with a greater role in team management and, crucially, a guaranteed position until the 2011 World Cup. Thus the New Zealand series was meant to, after a series of failed ignitions, start the Younis Khan era in top gear.
That was the script being followed in the first ODI as Pakistan comfortably won the first match against the Kiwis, fueled by Shahid Afridi’s brilliant all-round performance, although Younis failed to stamp his signature on the game and batted poorly. Two games, two batting collapses, and a series defeat later, Younis abruptly stepped away from the captaincy again, citing a loss of authority in the dressing room this time and requesting a ‘rest’ for the tour of New Zealand. The rumors have ranged from differences with senior players and provincial conflict to a behind-the-scenes revolt instigated by none other than recently retired Inzamam ul-Haq. Remember, this is a Pakistani script, with more shades of grey and chaos than anything the best writer could produce.
For the remarkable actions of Younis are mirrored by the equally remarkable comeback of Mohammad Yousuf, acclaimed as the most experienced and elegant batsman in the Pakistan cricket team. His story is no less sensational – after a record-breaking year in 2006 where he accumulated more runs in a calendar year than any man before him, Yousuf was dropped for the Twenty20 World Cup as Shoaib Malik almost led the team to victory with a heartbreaking loss in the final against perennial rivals India. Yousuf promptly launched into a series of disputes, signing for the rebel Indian Cricket League, then for the officially endorsed Indian Premier League, and eventually returning to the ICL, whereupon he was banned by the PCB. After cancelling his contract with the ICL after just one season, he returned to the Pakistan side after two years in the wilderness – and is now the captain.
A remarkable incidental statistic underscores the stranger-than-fiction reality of Pakistan cricket. Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf are the most successful batting partners in the country’s history, having scored over 3000 runs together at roughly 78 runs per innings. When and if we see them add to their list of nine century stands in nine years together remains a moot point.
Originally published in Generation Next on November 11, ‘09.
On May 27th of this year, FC Barcelona faced off with Manchester United in the final of the UEFA Champions League at the Olympic Stadium in Rome. Soccer lovers around the world, fans and pundits alike, agreed that it was the dream final – arguably the best teams in Europe over the past year, waltzing past their opponents with brilliant attacking play and winning their respective domestic leagues.
Fast forward to Matchday 5 of the current edition of the Champions League, and both of these two heavyweights were held to draws by relatively small fish – while Barcelona were unable to score against Rubin Kazan, Manchester United had to fight to salvage a draw after surrendering a shock two-goal deficit against CSKA Moscow. It seemed to be the story of this round – ‘traditional giants register surprising failures as supposed minnows put up a brave fight to steal the points.’ Along with last year’s finalists, clubs like Chelsea, Liverpool, Bayern Munich, and Sevilla all failed to pick up wins against opposition that they would usually expect to beat.
Diehard fans were left scratching their heads in frustration and wonder in midweek; but a closer look at the results will show that there weren’t really too many surprises. Barcelona have been slightly lackluster of late and were beaten 2-1 by Rubin Kazan a fortnight previously in what was arguably the upset of the year in the world of soccer, so it was always going to be tough winning in the freezing Russian conditions (especially with an out-of-form Lionel Messi and rusty Thierry Henry). Manchester United played without their first-choice defenders and despite conceding three goals, eventually fought back through Paul Scholes and Antonio Valencia, although the latter had a deflection to thank for his goal. Chelsea were playing against an admittedly out-of-sorts Atletico Madrid and a fired-up Sergio ‘Kun’ Aguero, who scored a brilliant volley and an even better free kick from 30 yards to beat Petr Cech at the near post to tie the game at the death.
Nevertheless, most big clubs have nothing to worry about and will probably cruise through to the knockout stage – several already have. Two of the biggest guns in Europe, though, are dangerously close to being knocked out – Liverpool and Bayern Munich.
Bayern Munich were defeated 2-0 by Bordeax and need a minor miracle to see them through to the next round, having won just a solitary fixture in the group stage and that too against minnows Maccabi Haifa. It’s been a shocking string of performances for the boys from the Bundesliga and the primary benefactors of the German lapses have been the French champions Girondins de Bordeaux. Bordeaux, for those who don’t follow Ligue Un football, broke FC Lyon’s amazing seven year winning streak in the French league last year, spearheaded by the brilliant Youann Gourcuff and Arsenal target Marouane Chamakh, coached by Les Bleus legend Laurent Blanc. They’re a team to watch, currently undefeated on their return to the Champions League.
The biggest losers in Europe this year have been, unquestionably, Liverpool. They have been finalists and semifinalists twice in the past four years, winning the coveted trophy in an unforgettable final against AC Milan in 2005. This year, though, there’s a crisis at Anfield and progression to the next round is not certain even if Liverpool win their remaining games. Defeats against unfancied Fiorentina and French giants Lyon have thrust the Champion’s League future of the Scousers into uncertainty. Rafael Benitez has made several tactical blunders, such as playing left-back Fabio Aurelio in the middle of the park at times, and the absences of club captain and talisman Steven Gerrard and star striker Fernando Torres have hurt severely. The Kop, silenced by Lyon’s equalizer at the death last week, will have to pray for results to go their way if Liverpool are to achieve any measure of success in this year’s Champions League tournament.
As far as the rest of the groups go, the decisive Matchday 6 is coming up on the 24th and 25th of November – stay tuned!
Nabeel Shakeel Ahmed
Dwight Duncan announced yesterday that prepared food and beverages under $4 and newspapers will be exempted from taxes in the upcoming Ontario tax reforms, a move supposedly meant to make life easier for the everyday Ontario resident, especially those amongst low-income groups. Yes, the daily newspaper and coffee is an important part of the Canadian way of life. But the lobbying of the newspaper and coffee industries has played a significant role in this exemption (indeed, the announcement itself was made at a coffee shop) and I believe that this decision is at the long-term expense of the Ontario public.
These muffins are available in low-fat versions as well..but it's still healthier to have an apple for a snack!
That is because Queen’s Park is implicitly supporting an unhealthy nutritional choice. Coffee shops may have healthy alternatives to their mainstream (and usually excessively sugary/salty/calorie-laden) products, but over the long term the government should be encouraging the consumption of more fruits and vegetables, not processed foods. To deal effectively with obesity and cut down related health costs, the authorities need to make healthy choices cheaper and impose a sort of ’sin tax’ on the processed calorie-laden products commonly found in the convenience food industry (including both fast food and coffee shops). The New York Times has reported on how posting calorie counts has not made a significant impact on eating habits; better policies need to be adopted. A rethink might be in order.
Excellent short little piece recommending a Pakistan stopover for Stephen Harper in his visit to the subcontinent. Canada does not want to repeat US mistakes and risk a trust deficit with Pakistan – with over 120,000 Canadians of Pakistani origin, hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis living in Canada as permanent residents, and over 10,000 Pakistanis landing each year, Canada would do well to cultivate good relations with the Pakistani government.
This advice dovetails nicely with Seymour Hersh’s latest article on Pakistan, a piece exploring the rumors and conspiracy theories about American interest in Pakistan’s nuclear resume. ‘Defending the Arsenal’ has been widely criticized and has thus generated a great deal of controversy, which is largely unnecessary. The article is not, as the backlash in Pakistan has suggested, ‘anti-Pakistani’ or ’sensationalist’ as far as its content goes – at least not excessively so. It needs to be a little more balanced, yes, but it does do a good job of exploring the trust deficit. The New Yorker made a bad move by headlining the article as ‘Are nuclear weapons safe in Pakistan?’ – a question that Seymour Hersh himself does not ask.
Indeed, as James Gundun points out,
“Hersh never said anything too controversial, normal rumors in Pakistan really, and he interviewed figures from both sides, even admitting that America’s strategy made Pakistan “hate our guts.” Hersh’s real message is the continuing fragility of US-Pakistani and Pakistani-Indian relations,. An ugly truth, hence the backlash.”
Hersh has since explained that the point of US intervention in Pakistani nukes is a circular way of making sure that the Pak Army focuses on Afghanistan and not India – the theory is that Pakistan will pull away from the border (and refocus on the Taliban) once the Indian nukes are neutralized, but the Indians will only lower their guard once there is no risk of a Pakistani strike. Need I point out how ludicrous that is? Cyril Almeida (with interesting analysis and views, as always) had an interesting analogy:
“That’s not just asking the fox to guard the hen house; it’s taking a hen, stuffing it in the mouth of the fox, clamping its jaws shut and then asking the fox not to chew.”
Anyway. I’ve digressed enough. Hersh’s analysis is worthwhile for mainly this:
Pakistan’s fears about the United States coöperating with India are not irrational. Last year, Congress approved a controversial agreement that enabled India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the United States without joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, making India the only non-signatory to the N.P.T. permitted to do so. Concern about the Pakistani arsenal has since led to greater coöperation between the United States and India in missile defense; the training of the Indian Air Force to use bunker-busting bombs; and “the collection of intelligence on the Pakistani nuclear arsenal,” according to the consultant to the intelligence community. (The Pentagon declined to comment.)
Canada does not want Pakistan to have similar fears about its relationship with India. A 6-hour stopover in Islamabad would be reassuring and a shrewd diplomatic move – let’s hope Stephen Harper makes it.
Reporters without Borders recently released the Press Freedom Index 2009 and Pakistan has dropped seven places to occupy the 159th rank, after two years at No. 152, mainly because of the security situation and instability.
“War and terrorism wrought havoc and exposed journalists to great danger…Despite having dynamic news media, Pakistan (159th) is crippled by murders of journalists and the aggressiveness of both the Taliban and sectors of the military. It shared (with Somalia) the world record for journalists killed during the period under review.”
We may have lots of TV channels and newspapers and radio stations, but it’s just not very safe for a foreign journalist to work in the country. The government is trying to provide protection, but then it was trying to protect GHQ too, and look how that turned out.
This is a loss for the Pakistani people because the best chance for Pakistan to get a better and more true representation in the world media is through foreign journalists. Too often the country gets a raw deal when it comes to reporting and news coverage from the international press – and that’s an understatement. Things are not as bad in the country as many believe, but the best way to prove it is to have foreigners visit the country and see it for themselves.
That’s why I am such a great fan of the New York Times journalist Adam Ellick, who has spent quite a bit of time in the country and is doing a great job reporting on issues as diverse as schools in Swat and the messages musicians in Pakistan are sending. One of his best works, in my opinion, is the story of Malala, a girl who had to move out from her home for six months while the Swat operation was in progress.
Oh, and most internet-savvy Pakistanis will be interested to know that he’s the guy behind the infamous Karachi fetish factory video as well 
—
I had the opportunity of meeting him a few months ago at a book club and in hindsight, I wonder what he was thinking about us as we discussed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and blew away over a thousand rupees in snacks and watermelon juice…while he had spent the past few months documenting the sad state of affairs in many places in our country. That’s the pity – it took a foreign journalist to share the story of Malala with Pakistanis. The Pakistani journalists, meanwhile, are busy with time-wasting rambles (watch the first four minutes of this episode of Meray Mutabiq to see what I mean).
That’s why Pakistan’s lowly position on the Press Freedom Index is cause for concern; despite a ‘democratic’ government and limited media controls at best, we continue to get bad press because of our bad press.
You wouldn’t think that a Nobel Peace Prize winner would be wondering where he messed up, would you?
But Barack Obama, President of the United States, Commander in Chief of the most powerful army in the world, and 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner – is certainly going through some difficult times.
He has, so far, been unable to find a solution to the two big challenges his presidency has faced so far – health care and the Afghan war – and all of America is shaken by the attacks at Fort Bragg and the shootings in Orlando. The Kerry-Lugar bill, meanwhile, has been shot down like a US drone, and to top it off – Hillary Clinton just killed his status in the Middle East.
Obama’s unprecedented act of reaching out to Muslims and (Arabs in particular) was a decisive factor in his Nobel Peace Prize win – but his administration seems to have taken two quick u-turns and the Middle East has been left disoriented. Indeed, the prevailing feeling is one of betrayal, as Craig Nelson points out in the UAE:
It’s official: forget Cairo. Fold up the speech and throw it in the bin, or put it in that already bulging folder marked “Bad Faith & Broken Promises”…
…Mr Obama was said to be different, and his Cairo speech gave Arabs and Muslims throughout the world a reason to think so. After all, it was in the Egyptian capital that the US leader declared in June to thunderous applause: “The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”
On Saturday, the US made a show of appearing to do precisely that.
At the news conference in Jerusalem where Washington unqualifiedly dropped the settlement precondition requirement, Mrs Clinton and the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu donned the shoes of Mr Bush and Mr Sharon.
It was not so much the ensuing dissembling that was discouraging – after all, we have grown accustomed to the evasions and lying that are rife on all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – but the brazenness of it that disheartened any listener who held out hope that this US administration would turn over a new leaf with Palestinians in particular, and the Arab world in general….
…For one thing, one would be hard pressed to imagine what more could be done to undermine the tattered credibility among Palestinians of the so-called “moderate” president, Mahmoud Abbas.
For another, champions of “moderation” both in the region and elsewhere will have even less to show the next time young Arabs, let alone young Palestinians, demand illustrations of its benefits…
Mahmoud Abbas has resigned, the peace process seems to have come to yet another standstill, and it’s that same old story as far as Palestinians are concerned:
America comes, says nice things, promises to help Palestinians, then sides with the Israelis anyway.
The actions of Mrs. Clinton in the past week have particularly far-reaching consequences because they undermine moderate efforts to reach peace – the foremost proponent of which has been Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority and leader of Fatah. Already looked down upon by many in Palestine for his supposedly soft approach and advocacy of flexible dialogue, Abu Mazen has been effectively pushed off the cliff – a view that both the Israeli and Palestinian press hold. As the BBC also reports, there are few who can replace him if he does leave.
What that signals is a possibility of power returning to Hamas in the January elections, something neither Israel and America will ever accept. A power vacuum in Fatah might be the ideal route for Ismael Haniyeh, Khaled Meshaal, and co to finally claim leadership in the Palestinian Authority. As a consequence the White House should have anticipated (and that Israel realizes), it makes Clinton’s words even more confusing, summarized brilliantly by Nabil Shaath (quoted via James Gundun):
This lack of foresight, of a Plan B, is summarized in one line by Nabil Shaath.
“It really is like telling the Palestinians to go back to violence.”
James Gundun has also blogged authoritatively about how, as Clinton backtracked after her diplomatic blunder, both Israelis and Palestinians feel betrayed. The White House has dropped the ball on this one, and they need to have a single, consistent message for any hope of renewed negotiations, much less progress on achieving peace in the Middle East.
Read more:
AP: Abbas’ move reflects deep despair
Palestinians condemn Clinton-and America
Hillary gives the game away – illusion over
John Arlott via Wisden Cricinfo:
“Australianism means single-minded determination to win – to win within the laws but, if necessary, to the last limit within them. It means where the ‘impossible’ is within the realm of what the human body can do, there are Australians who believe that they can do it – and who have succeeded often enough to make us wonder if anything is impossible to them. It means they have never lost a match – particularly a Test match – until the last run is scored or their last wicket down.”
That’s why I admire Australia. There’s a reason they’re one of the most successful teams in the world over the past 100 years. They’ve always been counted amongst the very best, and both Steve Waugh’s and Don Bradman’s Invincibles compare to any great outfit in any sport across the world. The result of an excellent domestic policy that provides both the facilities and opportunities for talent to develop, a history of great leaders, and – most crucially – a national culture that values discipline, effort, grit, and winning.
That is Australianism – exemplified by David Boon’s classic battle against India and dehydration in Madras, which helped Australia believe in itself after years in the doldrums, and Steve Waugh’s over-my-dead-body innings that marked a turning point in world cricket and officially established Australian dominance.
Dean Jones talks about some of the reasons Australia was so successful in the second part of the interview I linked to above, and the significance of their victories over India and Pakistan in 1987 – interesting stuff.
It’s a brilliant study in self-development because it primes one to never give up. It’s a lesson many people have yet to learn – but I am confident that more people would achieve their potential and be successful if they imbibed some of that spirit and chose not to lose hope and stop fighting.
