How to Find the Pal in Palestine

Here’s what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should say if he has a tactical bone in his body, which thus far has not been much in evidence:

UN-approved statehood for the Palestinians? Fabulous idea, love it to death. Israel is 1000 percent behind it! Go ahead—give them full membership, not just some puny observer-state status—and we’ll beg our American allies to vote for it! In fact, we’ll suggest, if they’re feeling particularly flush these days, that American taxpayers continue shoveling out $600 million a year in aid to the newly approved state. We’ll also stop building settlements.  Hell yes, we’ll ask for recognition from the Palestinians in return, but the other three demands will just be kind of modest appendages to that small request. All we’ll expect is that

(a) the newly approved Palestinian state controls the murderous impulses of Hamas, and takes full responsibility from now until eternity for any Hamas-inspired act of aggression against the state of Israel or anyone in it;

(b) the newly approved Palestinian state controls the murderous impulses of all residents and prosecutes to the fullest extent of the law anyone within its borders who undermines Israeli sovereignty or harms Israeli citizens;

(c) in the event the newly approved Palestinian state violates either (a) or (b), the member nations of the UN, especially all 15 of those nations who vote in the Security Council (yes, that includes you, Lebanon!) will immediately revoke the newly approved UN membership of the transgressor and send support, in the form of money, weapons, and troops to us, Israel, the folks who brought you the bargain of the century: full membership in return for civilization despite its discontents.

Now, two things of which we all should be aware. One is, as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas indicated in a piece in the New York Times in May, UN membership has its reality-TV kind of privileges: Get admitted and you can drag Israel before the International Criminal Court any time you choose and make sure plenty of international arrest warrants go out for practically any Israeli you like, or more precisely, don’t like. Abbas phrased this likely outcome in slightly more grandiloquent fashion (“Palestine’s admission to the United Nations,” he wrote, “would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies,” etc.)—but we all know what “pursue claims” means in UN parlance. It means practically anything you want it to mean.
Secondly, we also all know how likely it will be that any Palestinian state can control Hamas 24/7, or would choose to do so even if it could. In other words, the practical certainty is that even with Israeli and US consent to admittance, a Palestinian state approved for full membership—or a Palestinian state given only observer status, like the Vatican—will not be able to contain the murderous impulses within its borders, whatever and wherever those borders might be.
So why should Israel—or the US, for that matter—concede UN membership for Palestinians? Because it’s a done deal. Palestinians will get exactly what they want: a lot of posturing and righteous rage on the Security Council level, observer status as a state from the General Assembly, all of it invigorated by the damp-eyed swooning of fan-club nations. Grant that concession, and you reduce the cheering, take away the ammunition. And you don’t have to give away the store. You can demand in return. If those demands go unmet, as they will, you can retrieve your gifts with honor. If the Palestinians need legitimization, what Israel needs is a few moments of good-guy status. I realize perfectly that that kind of status is no substitute for a good defense system, but for Israel, it’s a great deal harder to come by. Netanyahu has never figured this out. That’s why he continues to build settlements in defiance of international law.

Kremlin Closes the Curtain on Its ‘Liberal’ Project

One inconvenience of heading a puppet political party is that, at any moment, the puppet master may remind you who is really pulling the strings. Mikhail Prokhorov learned this lesson the hard way. Last week, the Forbes billionaire, whose fortune is estimated at $18 billion (making him the third-richest man in Russia and the eighth-richest man in Europe), was publicly shown his place by a midlevel Kremlin apparatchik. Radii Khabirov, deputy head of the internal politics section at the presidential administration—a subordinate of the Kremlin’s notorious deputy chief of staff, Vladislav Surkov—directed the national convention of Right Cause party to dismiss Prokhorov as leader. Delegates, who had just three months ago enthusiastically embraced the billionaire and called him their “Czar, father, God, and military commander,” equally enthusiastically (by 75 “ayes” to zero “nays,” with two abstentions) voted to fire him.
Friends had warned Prokhorov not to play the Kremlin’s game. He ignored their advice and agreed to become the nominal head of Right Cause, an ostensibly “liberal” party set up by the Kremlin to imitate the presence of pro-democracy forces on the December ballot—for the sake of legitimizing Russia’s “elections” in the eyes of the West. The real liberal opposition, the Popular Freedom Party led by former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov and former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, was denied registration in June—the same month Prokhorov was picked to lead Right Cause. While calling for moderate “reforms”—such as electing 25 percent of Duma members in single-member districts rather than through party lists—Prokhorov emphasized that he was not opposed to the system and maintained unwavering loyalty to Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev. But, as Boris Nemtsov observed after Prokhorov’s removal, “Even if you are 95 percent dependent [on the Kremlin], and only 5 percent independent, you are already considered a criminal.”
Prokhorov’s “5 percent independence” consisted of wanting to place a handful of his own people—such as Yekaterinburg activist Yevgeny Roizman, known for his controversial methods of combating drug addiction—onto the party list, rather than just signing off on the preapproved list handed down from the Kremlin. (Two days before his dismissal, Prokhorov had a private meeting with Surkov.) Prokhorov had half-jokingly suggested that he would make a good prime minister—the position currently held by Putin—and that he may consider running for president in 2012. Coupled with his formidable wealth, such words may have proven too much for his Kremlin curators.
“We will soon find out who is the real leader of the party—Prokhorov or Surkov,” noted Roizman two days before the convention. The answer was clear enough. Prokhorov, thrown out by the same people who had hired him three months earlier, accused Surkov of being “a puppeteer who has privatized the political system.” His place at the top of the Right Cause list in the December “elections” was given to little-known lawyer Andrei Dunayev—reported to be the aforementioned Radii Khabirov’s personal attorney. The second spot went to Andrei Bogdanov, the Kremlin’s errand boy who had previously helped it seize control of the Democratic Party of Russia from Mikhail Kasyanov, and posed as a “democratic candidate” in the 2008 presidential “elections.” In case not everyone got the message, Vladislav Surkov has just reminded his colleagues that “our principles of working with the political space will remain the same.”
The Kremlin’s “liberal” project has been shut down. All the better. If someone—in Russia or in the West—still had illusions about the possibility of “reform from within” or at least some token competition in the upcoming “parliamentary elections,” these have been conclusively put to rest. When political change finally does come to Russia, it will not come from inside the corrupt and lawless authoritarian system.

The Regionnaires’ Image Problem

Take a close look at the three photos just below. They were taken in the week of September 5th by a friend in Kyiv, across the street from the spot where the Yulia Tymoshenko trial is taking place. The top photograph shows the Regionnaire supporters of the trial; the other two show Tymoshenko’s supporters.


Take note of the obvious things, such as the slogans (at least those that I can decipher). Here are some of the ones displayed by the Regionnaires: “I Don’t Believe [You],” “Tymoshenko—to Be Held Responsible,” “She Stole. She Is Not Ukraine,” “Enough.”
Here are a few from Tymoshenko’s camp: “No to Political Repression,” “Yulia Is the Leader of an Honest Ukraine,” “Tymoshenko Is Our Only Hope,” “Yanukovych: Take Your Hands off Tymoshenko,” “The Mafia Will Not Frighten Tymoshenko.”
Now here’s the funny thing. You may or may not agree with legitimacy of the trial, but it’s a fact that the official charge against Tymoshenko is “abuse of office.” In particular, she supposedly issued a “directive” without first getting the Cabinet’s approval, which would have been routinely given anyway. You can also disagree about whether that’s a criminal offense, a civil offense, a mistake, or just plain politics. But you cannot disagree that Tymoshenko is not on trial for corruption, theft, and the like. But that’s exactly what the Regionnaires are saying. Paradoxically, their slogans unintentionally undermine the court’s legitimacy. The flag-waving Regionnaires are effectively stating that the court is wrong—a sentiment that Tymoshenko’s supporters down the block would heartily agree with. Obviously, the pro-Tymoshenko slogans are also questioning the court’s legitimacy, but that’s their intent. The Regionnaires—surprise!—can’t even get elementary propaganda right.
Now take a look at some of the less obvious things in the photographs. First, the flags: the Regionnaire side is awash with banners, only a handful of which are Ukrainian. The Tymoshenko side also has its share of party flags, but the national flag is amply visible as well. Note also the “density” of flags. The Regionnaires obviously believe in banner-overkill. The Tymoshenko side does not. Since national flags aren’t exactly in short supply, it’s clear that the Regionnaires are making a point: they are not Ukraine.
Second, and more interesting, are the colors. The Tymoshenko tents are white, blue, yellow, and beige. Say what you will, but they’re all inviting. In contrast, the Regionnaire colors are … well, there aren’t any, except for one: black. Is that supposed to intimidate? Are they declaring a secret affinity for anarchism? Is the trial a funeral? Or are they saying that the Party of Regions is the political equivalent of the Black Death? Clearly, these guys haven’t given the semiotics of color much thought.
Third and final point. The Tymoshenko side is open. You can walk down the street, visit a tent, pick up some literature, express your support, express your condemnation—whatever. Unsurprisingly, the Regionnaire side is closed. Indeed, it’s cordoned off—isolated and separated from the people they fear and detest. Just like the Regionnaire-led regime of President Viktor Yanukovych.
My point, mind you, is not that Tymoshenko shouldn’t be on trial (although she shouldn’t), but that the Regionnaires are—surprise!—obtuse. If this demonstration were organized by a bunch of teenagers from Luhansk, they might be forgiven. But the Party of Regions has an enormous propaganda apparatus with tons of highly paid “political technologists” who are supposed to know a thing or two about politics.
Fire ’em, President Yanukovych: you’re not getting your money’s worth. And donate that flag-cloth to Russia’s man in black, Vlad Putin.

Mediating a Conflict Between Two Rights (or Two Wrongs)

Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first president, once said that Palestine-Israel conflict was so intractable precisely because it is not a conflict between right and wrong, but rather a conflict between two rights. (The Israeli novelist Amos Oz added that, sometimes, it is a conflict between two wrongs.)
What does that mean for the international community gathered in New York to consider the Palestinians bid for recognition as the 194th state?
To play a positive role it must resist all temptations to take sides and apportion blame and concentrate instead on helping the parties toward a shared future. As Oz puts it, “When you see bleeding people on the road, don’t ask which driver takes more responsibility for the accident, it’s irrelevant, it’s not urgent. Ask, ‘What can I do in order to stop the bleeding, to help the injuries, to bring them to hospital to heal the suffering?’”
Translated into diplo-speak, the question becomes: What course of action is most likely to empower those willing and able to decisively advance the two-state vision and contribute to a more stable, secure, and peaceful Middle East?
This suggests five principles the international community should follow going forward.
1. Foster an environment conducive to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. If Palestinian hopes are raised and then frustrated by the UN bid, or if either side suffers humiliation or claims “victory,” then the resulting violence may badly set back negotiations and erode trust between the parties. Threats to use the bid to assail Israel in international legal forums (so-called “lawfare”) will only have the same consequence. A diversion of the peace process into legal wrangling at the International Criminal Court would be a disaster.
2. Secure the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian nation-building project. Legislation has been introduced in the US Congress to cut off funds to the PA and to any UN organization that embraces the Palestinians bid. Bad ideas both, but an indication of the potential that Palestinian unilateralism has to put Palestinian nation-building at risk. The successful program of international cooperation, coordination, and financing has begun to make a reality of the long-held dream of Palestinian nation-building in the last two years. Securing that achievement is in the strategic interest of both parties, and that means maintaining a closed door to Hamas until it accepts the Quartet principles, securing the continued and highly successful security cooperation between Israel and the PA, and, yes, keeping the aid flowing. 
3. Don’t forget the two peoples. While most people on both sides want peace and could live with the compromises (Israelis and Palestinians don’t hate each other as much as is made out), the politicians have failed to overcome the extremists and enforce the will of that majority. Unilateralism risks stoking mistrust, eroding cooperation, and only pushing further away the moment when each side must sit down and “write the other’s victory speech.” Direct negotiations under the auspices of the international community could help create an environment conducive to the leap of faith required of the Israeli and Palestinians peoples.
4. Insist the parties engage one another directly, recognize each other, and compromise. The creation of magnetic attractions away from the negotiating table may seduce the Palestinian side to hold out for maximalist positions that only push a conflict-ending agreement further away. Moreover, once inside international public fora, crowded as they are with third-party spoilers eager to advance their own agendas, good intentions can be forgotten as rhetoric and “megaphone diplomacy” take over.
5. Steer the parties back to negotiations. No giving up on negotiations just because they have not been successful yet. At Camp David in 2000, Taba in 2001, and again at Annapolis in 2007, the gaps between the parties narrowed, and both sides glimpsed a conflict-ending resolution. We should question the motivations of those who insist so vehemently that negotiations are useless. Certainly we should not share their pessimism. There is no alternative to seeing the job through.

Cisco Videos: CCVP

Cisco Videos: CCVP: Cisco 642-453: CCVP Video Training Cisco 642-453: CCVP Video Training English | WMV/WMV1, 1500 kb/s, 640×480, 15 fps | WMA, 96 kb/s, 44.1...

Cisco Videos: CISCO

Cisco Videos: CISCO: Cisco Career Certifications are IT Professional certifications for Cisco Systems products. The tests are administered by Pearson VUE ....

UK newz:Assange criticises unauthorised Wikileaks memoir

BBC:Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has accused a UK publisher of a breach of contract for releasing drafts of his autobiography without his approval. 
 
Edinburgh-based Canongate says the memoir will be sold in shops and online.
But Mr Assange says it is an unchecked work in progress and the publisher was profiteering from an erroneous draft.
Canongate says Mr Assange had worked with a ghostwriter, but later backed out and tried to cancel his contract.
The publisher said he had been paid an advance - understood by the BBC to be a substantial six-figure sum - and since he had not repaid it, it had decided to publish the first draft received in March.
'Duplicity' Mr Assange said in a statement: "The events surrounding its unauthorised publication by Canongate are not about freedom of information.
"They are about old-fashioned opportunism and duplicity - screwing people over to make a buck."
He said Canongate had acted in breach of contract and personal assurances that the draft would not be released without his permission.
The independent publishing firm paid the 40-year-old for the rights to the memoir last year.
In a statement it said: "On 7 June 2011, with 38 publishing houses around the world committed to releasing the book, Julian told us he wanted to cancel his contract.
"However, he had already signed his advance over to his lawyers to settle his legal bills.
"We have decided to honour that contract and to publish. Once the advance has been earned out, we will continue to honour the contract and pay Julian royalties."
The book recounts Mr Assange's early life growing up in Australia and how he became entranced by computers - and by hacking - to the founding of the secret-spilling website.
He is challenging a bid to extradite him to Sweden on sexual assault allegations at the High Court.