the human province

I don't know what to think about what's currently happening in Lebanon. I have a lot more questions than answers about the whole mess. I posted a few links to articles that were on or mentioned Fatah al-Islam, and it's no clearer to me who is financing these guys now. Everyone seems to be against these guys, from the PLO and Hamas to March 8 and 14, and Abssi is wanted on terrorism charges in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The opposition, backed up by Sy Hersh, seem to think that these guys have been supported by Saad Hariri, whereas the pro-government forces are blaming Syria.

A few things don't make sense, though. If these guys were really pro-Syrian, why would they have splintered off from the very pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada? And if they were really a tool of Hariri, why would they be fighting the ISF? Of course both of these questions assume that whoever financed these guys is still in control -- which may not be the case at all.

In any case, there are a lot of unanswered questions for me. Like why the ISF was even involved in the first place in a bank robbery investigation, and why then, the affair was handed over to the Army. Another question is what it would take to get permission to enter the Palestinian camps. Yet another is whether these fighters are Palestinian or rather foreigners (I've been seeing accounts that some are Yemeni, Bangladeshi and Saudi).

In any and all cases, the LAF is in a tough situation. If they back off, they look incompetent, which is already kind of the case since the militants seem to have given better than they have gotten in the exchange with the army so far. But since they cannot enter the camps, they're shelling them, which no matter what the case, cannot be a very precise way of retaliation. The shelling of Palestinian camps in Lebanon has historically been a bad idea, and I imagine that this time is no exception. The problem is that it is hard to see a solution to the problem short of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the refugee problem it created.

And now the bombs. Both Verdun and ABC have been hit with what seem to be warning shots. This is disconcerting to say the least. (I live about ten minutes by foot from the first bomb site.) Are the bombings related to the fighting in Tripoli? If so, why would a salafi group attack a Sunni neighborhood? Was Fatah al-Islam responsible for the bus bombings last February? If they have been responsible, why haven't they claimed credit for either?

A friend of mine may be going up to Tripoli to see what's happening for herself, and I've asked another friend at UNRWA if she has seen any echoes of what's happening in the other Palestinian camps. I'll post more as soon as I know more.

In the meantime, I'm way past deadline on a manuscript and sick as a dog, so that's all for now...

After a horrible, horrible flight from New York to Paris (I won't go into the details, but think 5 airports, 24 hours, horrible customer service and lost luggage), I'm back for a couple of weeks before returning to Lebanon.

Last week I read Judith Butler's piece in the London reviewon Hannah Arendt's Jewish Writings, which had some very interesting points to make and made me want to pick up the new collection:

In her critique of Fascism as well as in her scepticism towards Zionism, she clearly opposes those disparate forms of the nation-state that rely on nationalism and create massive statelessness and destitution. Paradoxically, and perhaps shrewdly, the terms in which Arendt criticised Fascism came to inform her criticisms of Zionism, though she did not and would not conflate the two.

She stated the matter quite clearly in The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951. Statelessness was not a Jewish problem, but a recurrent 20th-century predicament of the nation-state. What happened to the Jewish people under Hitler should not be seen as exceptional but as exemplary of a certain way of managing minority populations; hence, the reduction of 'German Jews to a non-recognised minority in Germany', the subsequent expulsions of the Jews as 'stateless people across the borders', and the gathering of them 'back from everywhere in order to ship them to extermination camps was an eloquent demonstration to the rest of the world how really to "liquidate" all problems concerning minorities and the stateless'. Thus, she continues,

after the war it turned out that the Jewish question, which was considered the only insoluble one, was indeed solved -- namely, by means of a colonised and then conquered territory -- but this solved neither the problem of the minorities nor the stateless. On the contrary, like virtually all other events of the 20th century, the solution of the Jewish question merely produced a new category of refugees, the Arabs, thereby increasing the number of stateless and rightless by another 700,000 to 800,000 people. And what happened in Palestine within the smallest territory and in terms of hundreds of thousands was then repeated in India on a large scale involving many millions of people.

I'm in Paris for the week and then will be travelling in the US for another week or so, so I won't be posting much.

I had a (long) layover in Prague, and when I went from one terminal to the other, they stopped me and wouldn't let me take my Coca-Cola in. This from the country whose national carrier gave everyone a metal knife and fork on the flight and let me carry on a set of (sharp) metal tongs for the shisha I brought back for a friend.

I don't know what to think about what's currently happening in Lebanon. I have a lot more questions than answers about the whole mess. I posted a few links to articles that were on or mentioned Fatah al-Islam, and it's no clearer to me who is financing these guys now. Everyone seems to be against these guys, from the PLO and Hamas to March 8 and 14, and Abssi is wanted on terrorism charges in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The opposition, backed up by Sy Hersh, seem to think that these guys have been supported by Saad Hariri, whereas the pro-government forces are blaming Syria.

A few things don't make sense, though. If these guys were really pro-Syrian, why would they have splintered off from the very pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada? And if they were really a tool of Hariri, why would they be fighting the ISF? Of course both of these questions assume that whoever financed these guys is still in control -- which may not be the case at all.

In any case, there are a lot of unanswered questions for me. Like why the ISF was even involved in the first place in a bank robbery investigation, and why then, the affair was handed over to the Army. Another question is what it would take to get permission to enter the Palestinian camps. Yet another is whether these fighters are Palestinian or rather foreigners (I've been seeing accounts that some are Yemeni, Bangladeshi and Saudi).

In any and all cases, the LAF is in a tough situation. If they back off, they look incompetent, which is already kind of the case since the militants seem to have given better than they have gotten in the exchange with the army so far. But since they cannot enter the camps, they're shelling them, which no matter what the case, cannot be a very precise way of retaliation. The shelling of Palestinian camps in Lebanon has historically been a bad idea, and I imagine that this time is no exception. The problem is that it is hard to see a solution to the problem short of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the refugee problem it created.

And now the bombs. Both Verdun and ABC have been hit with what seem to be warning shots. This is disconcerting to say the least. (I live about ten minutes by foot from the first bomb site.) Are the bombings related to the fighting in Tripoli? If so, why would a salafi group attack a Sunni neighborhood? Was Fatah al-Islam responsible for the bus bombings last February? If they have been responsible, why haven't they claimed credit for either?

A friend of mine may be going up to Tripoli to see what's happening for herself, and I've asked another friend at UNRWA if she has seen any echoes of what's happening in the other Palestinian camps. I'll post more as soon as I know more.

In the meantime, I'm way past deadline on a manuscript and sick as a dog, so that's all for now...

After a horrible, horrible flight from New York to Paris (I won't go into the details, but think 5 airports, 24 hours, horrible customer service and lost luggage), I'm back for a couple of weeks before returning to Lebanon.

Last week I read Judith Butler's piece in the London reviewon Hannah Arendt's Jewish Writings, which had some very interesting points to make and made me want to pick up the new collection:

In her critique of Fascism as well as in her scepticism towards Zionism, she clearly opposes those disparate forms of the nation-state that rely on nationalism and create massive statelessness and destitution. Paradoxically, and perhaps shrewdly, the terms in which Arendt criticised Fascism came to inform her criticisms of Zionism, though she did not and would not conflate the two.

She stated the matter quite clearly in The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951. Statelessness was not a Jewish problem, but a recurrent 20th-century predicament of the nation-state. What happened to the Jewish people under Hitler should not be seen as exceptional but as exemplary of a certain way of managing minority populations; hence, the reduction of 'German Jews to a non-recognised minority in Germany', the subsequent expulsions of the Jews as 'stateless people across the borders', and the gathering of them 'back from everywhere in order to ship them to extermination camps was an eloquent demonstration to the rest of the world how really to "liquidate" all problems concerning minorities and the stateless'. Thus, she continues,

after the war it turned out that the Jewish question, which was considered the only insoluble one, was indeed solved -- namely, by means of a colonised and then conquered territory -- but this solved neither the problem of the minorities nor the stateless. On the contrary, like virtually all other events of the 20th century, the solution of the Jewish question merely produced a new category of refugees, the Arabs, thereby increasing the number of stateless and rightless by another 700,000 to 800,000 people. And what happened in Palestine within the smallest territory and in terms of hundreds of thousands was then repeated in India on a large scale involving many millions of people.

I'm in Paris for the week and then will be travelling in the US for another week or so, so I won't be posting much.

I had a (long) layover in Prague, and when I went from one terminal to the other, they stopped me and wouldn't let me take my Coca-Cola in. This from the country whose national carrier gave everyone a metal knife and fork on the flight and let me carry on a set of (sharp) metal tongs for the shisha I brought back for a friend.

I don't know what to think about what's currently happening in Lebanon. I have a lot more questions than answers about the whole mess. I posted a few links to articles that were on or mentioned Fatah al-Islam, and it's no clearer to me who is financing these guys now. Everyone seems to be against these guys, from the PLO and Hamas to March 8 and 14, and Abssi is wanted on terrorism charges in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The opposition, backed up by Sy Hersh, seem to think that these guys have been supported by Saad Hariri, whereas the pro-government forces are blaming Syria.

A few things don't make sense, though. If these guys were really pro-Syrian, why would they have splintered off from the very pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada? And if they were really a tool of Hariri, why would they be fighting the ISF? Of course both of these questions assume that whoever financed these guys is still in control -- which may not be the case at all.

In any case, there are a lot of unanswered questions for me. Like why the ISF was even involved in the first place in a bank robbery investigation, and why then, the affair was handed over to the Army. Another question is what it would take to get permission to enter the Palestinian camps. Yet another is whether these fighters are Palestinian or rather foreigners (I've been seeing accounts that some are Yemeni, Bangladeshi and Saudi).

In any and all cases, the LAF is in a tough situation. If they back off, they look incompetent, which is already kind of the case since the militants seem to have given better than they have gotten in the exchange with the army so far. But since they cannot enter the camps, they're shelling them, which no matter what the case, cannot be a very precise way of retaliation. The shelling of Palestinian camps in Lebanon has historically been a bad idea, and I imagine that this time is no exception. The problem is that it is hard to see a solution to the problem short of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the refugee problem it created.

And now the bombs. Both Verdun and ABC have been hit with what seem to be warning shots. This is disconcerting to say the least. (I live about ten minutes by foot from the first bomb site.) Are the bombings related to the fighting in Tripoli? If so, why would a salafi group attack a Sunni neighborhood? Was Fatah al-Islam responsible for the bus bombings last February? If they have been responsible, why haven't they claimed credit for either?

A friend of mine may be going up to Tripoli to see what's happening for herself, and I've asked another friend at UNRWA if she has seen any echoes of what's happening in the other Palestinian camps. I'll post more as soon as I know more.

In the meantime, I'm way past deadline on a manuscript and sick as a dog, so that's all for now...

After a horrible, horrible flight from New York to Paris (I won't go into the details, but think 5 airports, 24 hours, horrible customer service and lost luggage), I'm back for a couple of weeks before returning to Lebanon.

Last week I read Judith Butler's piece in the London reviewon Hannah Arendt's Jewish Writings, which had some very interesting points to make and made me want to pick up the new collection:

In her critique of Fascism as well as in her scepticism towards Zionism, she clearly opposes those disparate forms of the nation-state that rely on nationalism and create massive statelessness and destitution. Paradoxically, and perhaps shrewdly, the terms in which Arendt criticised Fascism came to inform her criticisms of Zionism, though she did not and would not conflate the two.

She stated the matter quite clearly in The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951. Statelessness was not a Jewish problem, but a recurrent 20th-century predicament of the nation-state. What happened to the Jewish people under Hitler should not be seen as exceptional but as exemplary of a certain way of managing minority populations; hence, the reduction of 'German Jews to a non-recognised minority in Germany', the subsequent expulsions of the Jews as 'stateless people across the borders', and the gathering of them 'back from everywhere in order to ship them to extermination camps was an eloquent demonstration to the rest of the world how really to "liquidate" all problems concerning minorities and the stateless'. Thus, she continues,

after the war it turned out that the Jewish question, which was considered the only insoluble one, was indeed solved -- namely, by means of a colonised and then conquered territory -- but this solved neither the problem of the minorities nor the stateless. On the contrary, like virtually all other events of the 20th century, the solution of the Jewish question merely produced a new category of refugees, the Arabs, thereby increasing the number of stateless and rightless by another 700,000 to 800,000 people. And what happened in Palestine within the smallest territory and in terms of hundreds of thousands was then repeated in India on a large scale involving many millions of people.

I'm in Paris for the week and then will be travelling in the US for another week or so, so I won't be posting much.

I had a (long) layover in Prague, and when I went from one terminal to the other, they stopped me and wouldn't let me take my Coca-Cola in. This from the country whose national carrier gave everyone a metal knife and fork on the flight and let me carry on a set of (sharp) metal tongs for the shisha I brought back for a friend.

I don't know what to think about what's currently happening in Lebanon. I have a lot more questions than answers about the whole mess. I posted a few links to articles that were on or mentioned Fatah al-Islam, and it's no clearer to me who is financing these guys now. Everyone seems to be against these guys, from the PLO and Hamas to March 8 and 14, and Abssi is wanted on terrorism charges in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The opposition, backed up by Sy Hersh, seem to think that these guys have been supported by Saad Hariri, whereas the pro-government forces are blaming Syria.

A few things don't make sense, though. If these guys were really pro-Syrian, why would they have splintered off from the very pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada? And if they were really a tool of Hariri, why would they be fighting the ISF? Of course both of these questions assume that whoever financed these guys is still in control -- which may not be the case at all.

In any case, there are a lot of unanswered questions for me. Like why the ISF was even involved in the first place in a bank robbery investigation, and why then, the affair was handed over to the Army. Another question is what it would take to get permission to enter the Palestinian camps. Yet another is whether these fighters are Palestinian or rather foreigners (I've been seeing accounts that some are Yemeni, Bangladeshi and Saudi).

In any and all cases, the LAF is in a tough situation. If they back off, they look incompetent, which is already kind of the case since the militants seem to have given better than they have gotten in the exchange with the army so far. But since they cannot enter the camps, they're shelling them, which no matter what the case, cannot be a very precise way of retaliation. The shelling of Palestinian camps in Lebanon has historically been a bad idea, and I imagine that this time is no exception. The problem is that it is hard to see a solution to the problem short of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the refugee problem it created.

And now the bombs. Both Verdun and ABC have been hit with what seem to be warning shots. This is disconcerting to say the least. (I live about ten minutes by foot from the first bomb site.) Are the bombings related to the fighting in Tripoli? If so, why would a salafi group attack a Sunni neighborhood? Was Fatah al-Islam responsible for the bus bombings last February? If they have been responsible, why haven't they claimed credit for either?

A friend of mine may be going up to Tripoli to see what's happening for herself, and I've asked another friend at UNRWA if she has seen any echoes of what's happening in the other Palestinian camps. I'll post more as soon as I know more.

In the meantime, I'm way past deadline on a manuscript and sick as a dog, so that's all for now...

After a horrible, horrible flight from New York to Paris (I won't go into the details, but think 5 airports, 24 hours, horrible customer service and lost luggage), I'm back for a couple of weeks before returning to Lebanon.

Last week I read Judith Butler's piece in the London reviewon Hannah Arendt's Jewish Writings, which had some very interesting points to make and made me want to pick up the new collection:

In her critique of Fascism as well as in her scepticism towards Zionism, she clearly opposes those disparate forms of the nation-state that rely on nationalism and create massive statelessness and destitution. Paradoxically, and perhaps shrewdly, the terms in which Arendt criticised Fascism came to inform her criticisms of Zionism, though she did not and would not conflate the two.

She stated the matter quite clearly in The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951. Statelessness was not a Jewish problem, but a recurrent 20th-century predicament of the nation-state. What happened to the Jewish people under Hitler should not be seen as exceptional but as exemplary of a certain way of managing minority populations; hence, the reduction of 'German Jews to a non-recognised minority in Germany', the subsequent expulsions of the Jews as 'stateless people across the borders', and the gathering of them 'back from everywhere in order to ship them to extermination camps was an eloquent demonstration to the rest of the world how really to "liquidate" all problems concerning minorities and the stateless'. Thus, she continues,

after the war it turned out that the Jewish question, which was considered the only insoluble one, was indeed solved -- namely, by means of a colonised and then conquered territory -- but this solved neither the problem of the minorities nor the stateless. On the contrary, like virtually all other events of the 20th century, the solution of the Jewish question merely produced a new category of refugees, the Arabs, thereby increasing the number of stateless and rightless by another 700,000 to 800,000 people. And what happened in Palestine within the smallest territory and in terms of hundreds of thousands was then repeated in India on a large scale involving many millions of people.

I'm in Paris for the week and then will be travelling in the US for another week or so, so I won't be posting much.

I had a (long) layover in Prague, and when I went from one terminal to the other, they stopped me and wouldn't let me take my Coca-Cola in. This from the country whose national carrier gave everyone a metal knife and fork on the flight and let me carry on a set of (sharp) metal tongs for the shisha I brought back for a friend.

I don't know what to think about what's currently happening in Lebanon. I have a lot more questions than answers about the whole mess. I posted a few links to articles that were on or mentioned Fatah al-Islam, and it's no clearer to me who is financing these guys now. Everyone seems to be against these guys, from the PLO and Hamas to March 8 and 14, and Abssi is wanted on terrorism charges in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The opposition, backed up by Sy Hersh, seem to think that these guys have been supported by Saad Hariri, whereas the pro-government forces are blaming Syria.

A few things don't make sense, though. If these guys were really pro-Syrian, why would they have splintered off from the very pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada? And if they were really a tool of Hariri, why would they be fighting the ISF? Of course both of these questions assume that whoever financed these guys is still in control -- which may not be the case at all.

In any case, there are a lot of unanswered questions for me. Like why the ISF was even involved in the first place in a bank robbery investigation, and why then, the affair was handed over to the Army. Another question is what it would take to get permission to enter the Palestinian camps. Yet another is whether these fighters are Palestinian or rather foreigners (I've been seeing accounts that some are Yemeni, Bangladeshi and Saudi).

In any and all cases, the LAF is in a tough situation. If they back off, they look incompetent, which is already kind of the case since the militants seem to have given better than they have gotten in the exchange with the army so far. But since they cannot enter the camps, they're shelling them, which no matter what the case, cannot be a very precise way of retaliation. The shelling of Palestinian camps in Lebanon has historically been a bad idea, and I imagine that this time is no exception. The problem is that it is hard to see a solution to the problem short of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the refugee problem it created.

And now the bombs. Both Verdun and ABC have been hit with what seem to be warning shots. This is disconcerting to say the least. (I live about ten minutes by foot from the first bomb site.) Are the bombings related to the fighting in Tripoli? If so, why would a salafi group attack a Sunni neighborhood? Was Fatah al-Islam responsible for the bus bombings last February? If they have been responsible, why haven't they claimed credit for either?

A friend of mine may be going up to Tripoli to see what's happening for herself, and I've asked another friend at UNRWA if she has seen any echoes of what's happening in the other Palestinian camps. I'll post more as soon as I know more.

In the meantime, I'm way past deadline on a manuscript and sick as a dog, so that's all for now...

After a horrible, horrible flight from New York to Paris (I won't go into the details, but think 5 airports, 24 hours, horrible customer service and lost luggage), I'm back for a couple of weeks before returning to Lebanon.

Last week I read Judith Butler's piece in the London reviewon Hannah Arendt's Jewish Writings, which had some very interesting points to make and made me want to pick up the new collection:

In her critique of Fascism as well as in her scepticism towards Zionism, she clearly opposes those disparate forms of the nation-state that rely on nationalism and create massive statelessness and destitution. Paradoxically, and perhaps shrewdly, the terms in which Arendt criticised Fascism came to inform her criticisms of Zionism, though she did not and would not conflate the two.

She stated the matter quite clearly in The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951. Statelessness was not a Jewish problem, but a recurrent 20th-century predicament of the nation-state. What happened to the Jewish people under Hitler should not be seen as exceptional but as exemplary of a certain way of managing minority populations; hence, the reduction of 'German Jews to a non-recognised minority in Germany', the subsequent expulsions of the Jews as 'stateless people across the borders', and the gathering of them 'back from everywhere in order to ship them to extermination camps was an eloquent demonstration to the rest of the world how really to "liquidate" all problems concerning minorities and the stateless'. Thus, she continues,

after the war it turned out that the Jewish question, which was considered the only insoluble one, was indeed solved -- namely, by means of a colonised and then conquered territory -- but this solved neither the problem of the minorities nor the stateless. On the contrary, like virtually all other events of the 20th century, the solution of the Jewish question merely produced a new category of refugees, the Arabs, thereby increasing the number of stateless and rightless by another 700,000 to 800,000 people. And what happened in Palestine within the smallest territory and in terms of hundreds of thousands was then repeated in India on a large scale involving many millions of people.

I'm in Paris for the week and then will be travelling in the US for another week or so, so I won't be posting much.

I had a (long) layover in Prague, and when I went from one terminal to the other, they stopped me and wouldn't let me take my Coca-Cola in. This from the country whose national carrier gave everyone a metal knife and fork on the flight and let me carry on a set of (sharp) metal tongs for the shisha I brought back for a friend.

I don't know what to think about what's currently happening in Lebanon. I have a lot more questions than answers about the whole mess. I posted a few links to articles that were on or mentioned Fatah al-Islam, and it's no clearer to me who is financing these guys now. Everyone seems to be against these guys, from the PLO and Hamas to March 8 and 14, and Abssi is wanted on terrorism charges in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The opposition, backed up by Sy Hersh, seem to think that these guys have been supported by Saad Hariri, whereas the pro-government forces are blaming Syria.

A few things don't make sense, though. If these guys were really pro-Syrian, why would they have splintered off from the very pro-Syrian Fatah al-Intifada? And if they were really a tool of Hariri, why would they be fighting the ISF? Of course both of these questions assume that whoever financed these guys is still in control -- which may not be the case at all.

In any case, there are a lot of unanswered questions for me. Like why the ISF was even involved in the first place in a bank robbery investigation, and why then, the affair was handed over to the Army. Another question is what it would take to get permission to enter the Palestinian camps. Yet another is whether these fighters are Palestinian or rather foreigners (I've been seeing accounts that some are Yemeni, Bangladeshi and Saudi).

In any and all cases, the LAF is in a tough situation. If they back off, they look incompetent, which is already kind of the case since the militants seem to have given better than they have gotten in the exchange with the army so far. But since they cannot enter the camps, they're shelling them, which no matter what the case, cannot be a very precise way of retaliation. The shelling of Palestinian camps in Lebanon has historically been a bad idea, and I imagine that this time is no exception. The problem is that it is hard to see a solution to the problem short of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the refugee problem it created.

And now the bombs. Both Verdun and ABC have been hit with what seem to be warning shots. This is disconcerting to say the least. (I live about ten minutes by foot from the first bomb site.) Are the bombings related to the fighting in Tripoli? If so, why would a salafi group attack a Sunni neighborhood? Was Fatah al-Islam responsible for the bus bombings last February? If they have been responsible, why haven't they claimed credit for either?

A friend of mine may be going up to Tripoli to see what's happening for herself, and I've asked another friend at UNRWA if she has seen any echoes of what's happening in the other Palestinian camps. I'll post more as soon as I know more.

In the meantime, I'm way past deadline on a manuscript and sick as a dog, so that's all for now...

After a horrible, horrible flight from New York to Paris (I won't go into the details, but think 5 airports, 24 hours, horrible customer service and lost luggage), I'm back for a couple of weeks before returning to Lebanon.

Last week I read Judith Butler's piece in the London reviewon Hannah Arendt's Jewish Writings, which had some very interesting points to make and made me want to pick up the new collection:

In her critique of Fascism as well as in her scepticism towards Zionism, she clearly opposes those disparate forms of the nation-state that rely on nationalism and create massive statelessness and destitution. Paradoxically, and perhaps shrewdly, the terms in which Arendt criticised Fascism came to inform her criticisms of Zionism, though she did not and would not conflate the two.

She stated the matter quite clearly in The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951. Statelessness was not a Jewish problem, but a recurrent 20th-century predicament of the nation-state. What happened to the Jewish people under Hitler should not be seen as exceptional but as exemplary of a certain way of managing minority populations; hence, the reduction of 'German Jews to a non-recognised minority in Germany', the subsequent expulsions of the Jews as 'stateless people across the borders', and the gathering of them 'back from everywhere in order to ship them to extermination camps was an eloquent demonstration to the rest of the world how really to "liquidate" all problems concerning minorities and the stateless'. Thus, she continues,

after the war it turned out that the Jewish question, which was considered the only insoluble one, was indeed solved -- namely, by means of a colonised and then conquered territory -- but this solved neither the problem of the minorities nor the stateless. On the contrary, like virtually all other events of the 20th century, the solution of the Jewish question merely produced a new category of refugees, the Arabs, thereby increasing the number of stateless and rightless by another 700,000 to 800,000 people. And what happened in Palestine within the smallest territory and in terms of hundreds of thousands was then repeated in India on a large scale involving many millions of people.

I'm in Paris for the week and then will be travelling in the US for another week or so, so I won't be posting much.

I had a (long) layover in Prague, and when I went from one terminal to the other, they stopped me and wouldn't let me take my Coca-Cola in. This from the country whose national carrier gave everyone a metal knife and fork on the flight and let me carry on a set of (sharp) metal tongs for the shisha I brought back for a friend.