The Gonzales Watch (somewhat half- heartedly): FBI agent told to keep quiet

From Yahoo! News::

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An FBI agent was warned to keep quiet about the dismissal of a U.S. attorney after he told a newspaper her firing would hurt the agency's ongoing investigations and speculated politics was involved, a U.S. Senate panel heard on Tuesday.

FBI Director Robert Mueller defended the handling of the incident, saying: 'I do not believe it's appropriate for our special agents in charge to comment to the media on personnel decisions that are made by the Department of Justice.'

'I profoundly disagree,' replied Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, who told the panel of the warning to the agent. 'He (the agent) was simply saying that it would affect cases that were ongoing. And I think he's entitled to his opinion.'

Sounds kinda' like saying (with lots of brass beside you, and all around you) that you're following the advice of your generals, but ordering them to stay silent, but publicly visible and on display when they disagree. (Actually, it seems to come with military culture, without the need for potentially embarrassing direct orders. Very convenient.) All in the chain of command! Great PR for government work, when you can get it.

Nothing quite like a well-informed deliberative democracy in full flight. I wonder what that might look like?

Thanks to Truthout for helping me find this one. They need, and deserve, our support. And if more of us contributed, maybe they wouldn't have to beg quite so often.

Saudi King Condemns U.S. Occupation of Iraq

From The New York Times
After all, what are friends for?
What's next, a condemnation from Kuwait?

Actually, most everyone I know well (myself included) condemns the U.S. occupation of Iraq. That, and another election, may eventually get us somewhere (else?).

Meanwhile, maybe the Saudi King could turn his attention to influencing Sunni political and clerical leaders in Iraq to work out a less catastrophic resolution to that fiasco. And finally shut down Saudi money continuing to go to supporting training grounds for radical Islamists. And provide robust support for more moderate and pluralistic streams of thought that have flourished in past eras of Arab and Islamic history, and that contributed so much to (indeed, was critical to preserving) world civilization in a down time for the West. (I'm a particular fan of convivencia in Spain.)

This story also discusses the Arab League proposal on Israel/Palestine. I may have more to say later on this--it is likely to be much in the news in coming days. But briefly: If the Arabs were willing to adopt a more conciliatory--and more realistic--provision for resettlement and compensation of those displaced by events surrounding the creation of Israel in 1948 and the years following (note that this formulation includes displaced Jews as well as displaced Arabs), this could be the basis for a historic breakthrough. Otherwise, it is destined to be yet another in the long series of lost opportunities for peace.

It is time for another Sadat. As Dan Rather liked to say, Courage! I think Israel would be ready to respond. Is someone (say, the Saudi King?) ready to step up?

NOTE:SOME LIVELY DISCUSSION UNDERWAY--SEE COMMENTS!

This is long enough to move here from my response to a comment:
Thanks to lal for his/her comments.

There was significant discussion on a "one state" solution among Jewish intellectuals in 1930s Palestine. The group was known as Brit Shalom, I believe, and included such heavyweights as Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, President of The Hebrew University. I've wondered from time to time whether I would have supported that position had I been around in that time and place, without knowing the future. As best I know, that discussion did not survive the events of the Holocaust.

I agree with lal that whatever might have been, or might be in some distant, post-national future (if we survive that long), a "one state" solution (presuming a democratic government) is not a viable goal in present historic circumstances, and distracts thinking and energies from what I hope is a more realistic, if ever receding goal: two democratic societies, each pursuing its own distinctive national culture and identity, living in a tolerable approximation of peace and with some cooperative economic relationships with the other, and with neighboring states. A nice thought with Passover coming.

I think both polities and their respective leaderships bear a share of responsibility for the failure to bring this to reality. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist cost us all the most promising possibility. Inept political leadership by his well meaning successor, Shimon Peres, and the turning back from the pursuit of peace by Likud, ended that moment of potential promise. Arguably more consequential was the colossal failure of Yasir Arafat to capitalize on the possibilities offered by Camp David and Taba in the waning moments of the Clinton Administration (and, with a greater causal relationship, of the Barak Administration in Israel). That was the moment of greatest possibility; what has the second intifada achieved for anyone? Is it likely that the Israelis will ever agree to more than was offered at Taba (and refined in the Geneva Accords)?

I think the Israelis are, at this point, sick of the conflict, frankly sick of the Palestinians, and devoid of optimism or idealism about any constructive future together. I think they, even with --and maybe because of-- their current weak (and scandal-ridden) government, might pay a substantial price (including territory, but not a substantial population inflow under a Palestinian "right of return") to end the conflict, and pursue a better (and largely separate) life for their people. Less a "peace of the brave" than a "peace of the exhausted."

(Yes, I largely agree with Tom Friedman's recent column in The Times. I have always thought better of his columns on Israeli-Arab issues--his original reporting focus and area of expertise--than on most other issues, including Iraq and Globalization.)

Zimbabwe’s Opposition Leader Is Seized

From The New York Times:

[Robert] Mugabe, 83, who has vowed to crush opposition to his rule, was to attend an emergency meeting of Southern African leaders in Tanzania on Wednesday focusing on the political turmoil in his country.

Another triumph for democracy in Zimbabwe. Can't someone find Zimbabwe's once heroic resistance leader, grown corrupt and abusive with too much power for way too long (no racism intended--that's better than what I have to say about Bush), a really nice retirement villa, one way transportation included? Actually, speaking of Saudi Arabia, now that Idi Amin's retirement home is no longer occupied...
To seal the deal, maybe the great Forest Whitaker could be induced to do the movie bio? Or promise not to?