Articles Books

In this wide ranging series of essays, Naipaul tackles everything from John Steinbeck to Mauritius, the art of writing, to the game of politics. We get here an excellent cross section of Naipaul in the early to middle part of his career: you can sense the extrordinary anger of the early years, and feel the cool off toward a more detached, clinical despair that marks so much of his late fiction and non-fiction work.

i have read the article, i am interested in the article,so i want to download it ,thanks!

This article gives a good insight into why wines are hard to buy, and what wineries should and could to improve the way we choose. I wonder why this kind of "this is why it matters" research is not done into more product categories.

This is a good review, by Fern Sidman, of an atrocious book by former American President Jimmy Carter, a man I am ashamed to admit that I voted for.

Sidman accurately calls Carter's book "a one-sided, totally skewed and highly subjective piece of Arab propaganda." And she makes a good point when she reminds us that Carter devotes quite a bit of time to complaining about Israel's security barrier. After all, I think it does not take much wisdom to realize that this barrier serves two useful purposes. First, it saves lives, by reducing the number of suicide bombing attacks directed against Israelis. And second, when someone does manage to get past that barrier, it is unlikely that they can claim to have crossed it unintentionally!

My own feeling is that those who strongly oppose the security barrier probably are unhappy about the fact that it is saving lives. Sidman is more than justified in saying that "Carter displays no understanding or sympathy for Israelis whose lives have been snuffed out" by the terrorists.

Sidman concludes that Carter's book is an egregious attack on Israel and the Jewish people. I agree. And I recommend this review of Carter's book.

We've heard plenty about a right of Arab refugees to "return" to Israel. But does it have anything to do with international law? If not, then I wonder just what "right" people have to destroy a nation? If it is a right under international law, then in my opinion we all need to vastly improve international law so that it is consistent with the continued existence of civilization.

The first topic that Robbie Sabel discusses in this article is the responsibility for the refugee problem. And while many Arabs want Israel to accept that responsibility, Sabel indicates that the Arab refugee problem would not have existed had there been no Arab attack on Israel. I think that's debateable, given that many Arabs fled the area before there was much fighting, but I agree that we ought not blame the refugee problem on Israel.

Next we see the issue of just who is considered to be a Levantine Arab refugee. At least 90% of those who are granted that status by the UNRWA have never lived in territory that is now Israel!

Do these people have a right to "return" to Israel? Sabel explains that if they do, it has to be either by some sort of treaty obligation of Israel's or a rule of customary international law. But the only treaty obligation of Israel that is relevant requires it to honor the right of return of Israeli nationals. The Levantine Arabs clearly do not qualify. In addition, that right applies only to individuals, not to populations en masse. And the individual Levantine Arabs (with very few exceptions) have no desire to become loyal Israeli citizens!

Some people mention UN resolution 194, but as the author explains, UN General Assembly resolutions cannot create international law. States are in no way obliged to comply with resolutions such as 194.

On the other hand, if all states tended to accept the idea of a return of hostile people who fled in the past, there would be a "right of return" in customary international law. And states clearly do no such thing. As Sabel reminds us, Muslims who fled India for Pakistan have no right to return to India, and Sudeten Germans have no right of return to the Czech Republic.

The article concludes with some recommendations, none of which I agree with. Still, I am awarding five stars to Sabel, just for coming up with an honest, sincere, and scholarly work.

Cole begins his article by telling of a Jew who returned to his old house in Germany, four decades after escaping from it in the 1930s. He and his daughter asked if they could go inside, but were roughly told no. Yet a bunch of Arabs think that they can't be told no, and that they have a right to not only visit but reclaim their old homes!

I find this demand to go back to these old homes absurd. Maybe those who actually owned the homes have some legal claim, but even then, I think we ought to be talking about monetary compensation through the present court system. But to me it is ludicrous for people who merely lived in a house to simply steal it from the present occupants. After all, the present occupants are the legal owners. They've paid all the property taxes and made all the improvements. Those who claim to be heirs of the ones who fled were never the owners. Why ought they have any claim?

I think the reason some folks say that these Arabs have a genuine claim is because the present owners are Jews, and some people think it would be fun to cheat some Jews, even if they need to toss truth, justice, and human rights out the window to do so.

Cole explains that Arab demands for Israel to honor such claims will sink any negotiations. Well, he was writing in 2001, and he was right.

The author also points out that Arabs are citing UN Resolution 194 as a basis for this absurd claim. But even this resolution merely says that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors ought to be permitted to do so when practicable. That resolution was never agreed to by Israel, was never practicable, and it is ancient history by now. Besides, asks Cole, when have these refugees ever agreed to live at peace with their neighbors?

If Arabs are supposed to be able to displace Jews like this, what principle is being followed? There have been millions of refugees from the 1940s, and none of them have ever obtained any such rights. Certainly not the Jews of Europe or of Arab lands. Nor the Germans of Europe. Cole carefully explains that Germany has unambiguously rejected any notion of a right of return for the over 12 million German refugees and their 60 million descendants.

There are some organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the National Council of Churches who seem to sympathize with the idea of a "return" of Levantine Arabs to Israel. Cole thinks these groups are profoundly naive. I think that's an understatement. I think the demand for a return is an insult to our species, and if implemented, it would set a terrible precedent. It would simply be a bald-faced way to get rid of Jewish rights in the Levant, and that would be followed by getting rid of human rights elsewhere. Human Rights Watch would be out of business, and the National Council of Churches would become an active opponent of human rights in general.

This is an excellent article, and I think those interested in this topic ought to read it.

As with all Congressional Research Service reports, this one is available for free by writing to your senator or representative.

Since I wrote the article, I think it is quite good! :-)
Is best read in conjunction with my article from "Small Wars & Insurgencies" journal, "Pushtuns, Leadership, Tribalism, Islam..."

S/F, Vern

This book is geared toward SLPs (speech-language pathologists)and it contains numerous articles for parents/caregivers to help them better understand their child's communication disorder. Great resource for any speech pathologist, I consider it a must have for my own practice. Since a fundamental part of rehabilitation is family education and training, a resource like this is a gem. Make this a classic in your SLP professional library.

Too bad it's not translated in English (I hope it will be).
I find it the most important book I've ever read. Mr. Patapievici has done an excellent job of dissecting and digesting all relevant political philosophy writings of the past 300 years and comes up with a refreshing, original and crystal clear diagnostic of the modern era ailments.