Obama’s Mideast plan leaked

And it’s one of the most brilliant pieces of realpolitik I’ve ever seen. 

http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-middle-east-peace-plan.html

Unfortunately, this can go one of four ways:

1. Both sides can accept losses. Palestinians accept alternatives to the right of return, the acceptance of some settlements which, if they’re the ones I think are considered “large settlements”, are contigious to the Israeli border and will be annexed. Loss of air control (although I can see that being a negotiated point after a 2011 Palestinain state is developed). Israel has to accept that sections of East Jerusalem will not be under their control, offer amnesty to Palestinians and accept international forces.
2. Both sides hate the plan, rejecting it for some the above reasons.
3. Israel rejects the plan. This is hard for me to fathom, but I can understand Eastern Jerusalem and loss of absolute sovereignity to international forces can be seen as a sticking point.  This seems like madness to me, but Israel has been moving progressively further to the right, and has shown it’s willing to buck international opinion, which would condemn Israel for rejecting the plan.
4. Palestinians reject the plan. That breaks down further into two distinct possibilities.

•  Palestinian Authorities reject the plan.  This is possible but, like Israel, is unlikely.  More so in fact, since Palestinians can recognize they’re in a pretty crappy negotiating position.  Signing in early gives them a good negotiating position.
• Palestinians groups (Hamas, Al Aqsa Brigade) reject the plan.  This unfortunately is the most likely scenario.  This could be nasty, depending on how much support and coordination exist beween Israel, Palestinian forces and international forces.  Depsite that, it wouldn’t be a game breaker,a dn in some ways would be the closest to the example of Northern Ireland, which definitively rejected the return to violence, despite Republican attempts to re-engage.

Regardless, this administration hasn’t shied away from taking on large tasks.  The stimulus, health-care and now a definitive peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  They’ve weathered the first well, let’s wish them the same success on the next two.

Zombie undead blogging the Sotomayor hearings: Couple of brief thoughts.

The racism complaints were fundamentally silly, I never would have guessed what a hottie young Sotomayer was, we’ve already nabbed 3 Republicans who publicly support her confirmation and Newt Gingrinch really has a terrible grasp on reality for the following quote:

“If she rules as a justice the way she has testified then conservatives won’t have very much to complain about. If she gets acceptance by fundamentally misleading the Senate, then I think you’ll have a very different situation.”

Except, Mr. Promise to America, she doesn’t have to give a damn about conservatives, because you’re in the minority, and a pretty significant one.  We’re not talking the nearly 50/50 splits that have been the hallmark of the Senate for the past 12 years;  we have a super-majority. And in the case of a judicial nominee, we’re going to see Dems toe the party line.

So no, she isn’t being accepted by “fundamentally misleading  the Senate”, she’s being accepted because, as your colleague Graham stated, “Barack Obama won, and that has to count for something.”  In this case, it counts for everything.

Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog: Cardin

Cardin gave me nothing of any interest.  Just doing a little nodding.

Little moment of humor from the chair.

Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog: Suprising honesty from Graham

Graham talking sensibly?  I know it’s oddly ramblin’  but he’s flat out being honest.  I appreciate that in him, even if I disagree almost entirely with his policies.

Also, I’m surprising that the looking into a person’s heart idea is being brought up, all it does is remind me of Bush/Putin.

Ok, now he’s all strange, but the really interesting thing, is he’s making the statement “Obama won, that matters”.  I wondering if he’ll buck the party.

Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog: Yewed?

I think Schumer is taking a poor track by arguing that Roberts was poorly vetted, or by arguing against Kyl.  Possibly my own problem, I would have called his ass out for suggesting that the President hates the Constitution.

Also the accent kills me.

Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog: the idiocy of Jon Kyl

Posting while listening to Kyl’s polemic smearing Sotomayor as a racist, and implying Barack Obama wants to supersede the rule of law in exchange for ruling by “the heart”.

This is idiotic, anyone with the most basic understanding of law understands that it is open to interpretation.  For every ruling, it’s possible to find a contrary precedent, ruling or even interpretation of statute.

Proud to be from Massachusetts

DOMA and same-sex marriage was the recent topic on the old ology board, and I’m glad to be the first to post the most recent development.

Mass. Attorney General, Martha Coakley, has just filed suit with the Federal Government, with a major portion of their claim being that declaration of marital status was “the exclusive prerogative of the states.” 

Back in the ology blog, I broke DOMA (poorly) into two major sections. The first is the argument against full-faith, and the second, the section defining marriage federally – which I considered the weaker of the two.  It appears that Martha Coakley agrees, since the bulk of the lawsuit is being directed at the section defining marriage.

Of course, my prediction is that DOMA will fail on the federal definition, but the full-faith argument will be allowed to stand based on case law and precedent.  So even if this lawsuit does succeed, and that’s a big if considering the current SCOTUS, same-sex marriage will still be legal in only a handful of states.  But in those states, it will be truly and completely legal, which is still a victory worth celebrating.