In today's WSJ, Bret Stephens clearly states the underlying Israeli-Palestinian problem that most people think is solvable...but I do not.  The issue is existential, not territorial, as he points out, and it always has been and always will be.  Let me quote from the article:

So it would be a splendid thing for Israel to tear down its settlements, put the settlers behind its pre-1967 borders and finally reach the peace deal with the Palestinians that has been so elusive for so long. Except for one problem: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't territorial. It's existential. Israelis are now broadly prepared to live with a Palestinian state along their borders. Palestinians are not yet willing to live with a Jewish state along theirs.

The Palestinians view all of Israel as settlements, not just Gaza and the West Bank! That's why when in 2000 ( Barak) and 2008 (Omert), when incredibly generous (I thought unreasonable) offers were extended to the Palestinians, they refused.  They want it all with no Jews present anywhere (hummm, where have we heard that before?) - to quote further:

Then there is the test case of Gaza. When Israel withdrew all of its settlements from the Strip in 2005, it was supposed to be an opportunity for Palestinians to demonstrate what they would do with a state if they got one. Instead, they quickly turned it into an Iranian-backed Hamas enclave that for nearly three years launched nonstop rocket and mortar barrages against Israeli civilians. Israel was ultimately able to contain that violence, but only at the price of a military campaign that was vehemently denounced by the very people who had urged Israel to withdraw in the first place.

As it happens, I supported Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, bloody-minded neocon though I am. On balance, I still think it was the right thing to do. By 2005, Israel's settlements in the Strip had become military and political liabilities. But there is a duty to take account of subsequent developments. And the sad fact is that the most important thing Israel's withdrawal from Gaza accomplished was to expose the fanatical irredentism that still lies at the heart of the Palestinian movement.

The withdrawal exposed other things too. For years, Israel's soi-disant friends, particularly in Europe, had piously insisted that they supported Israel's right to self-defense against the attacks on Israel proper.  But none of them lifted a finter to object to the rocket attacks from Gaza, while they were outspoken in denouncing Israel's "disproportionate" use of retaliatory force.

So, how do you negotiate a peace-treaty, a co-existence, with a party that, to quote their main financier, wants to wipe you off the map - not just your occupation of territory, but your existence?  We've been through this before, in fact, I lost 90 members of my family to someone who wanted the same thing, and we ended up with WWII.  How come such a little piece of land, with so few known natural resources, has troubled the world for almost 4000yrs when there are so many other 'richer' places to fight over? Hummm

To Russia with Love - French style -Medvedev is in Paris , trading natural gas for a highly advanced warship.  What was most interesting was the way Sarkozy pandered to Medvedev - calling Russia a partner.  So Dictatorship is ok if you can sell ships.  France is naive if they think this solidifies a relationship with Russia - Sarkozy was the one who helped negotiate the cease-fire between Georgia & Russia which Russia breaks virtually daily.  Ah, commerce matters more.  I can't believe Sarkozy actually thinks that this makes it a love fest with Putin and Medvedev.  Russia uses France to Russia's advantage and if that becomes a disadvantage, that's it.

The centuries old entanglement and love-hate relationship between the 2 countries continues.

As many of you know, I have a keen interest in Turkey and recent events are quite disconcerting.  Last week,  Islamic-leaning Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrested 49 of Turkey's high-ranking military officers for an alleged coup plot in 2003.  This is unprecedented.  The Turkish military has instigated 4 coups in Turkey's modern history - all to restore Ataturk's policy of democracy.  Erdogan has been trying to reduce the influence and power of the military to appease the EU (which will deny entry anyway, what a farce), and oh by the way, help lead the country down a more Islamic path.  

Regardless of what may be stated (you should read the Iranian press on this one, praising Erdogan), Erdogan has been trying to move the country to be more Islamic (remember April 2007 when Erdogan tried to get Abdullah Gul elected as Turkey's President - mostly a ceremonial post, but still significant - especially given Gul's blatant pro-Islamic stance).  The military has protected the secularism of Turkey, which is now at risk, especially with these recent moves by the government.Opposition parties are calling for early elections, which Erdogan has refused. 

Keep an eye on this - especially with what is also going on in Iran...this is not trivial and has very profound implications for the Middle East.

Yesterday, Saul Kaplan (founder and Chief Catalyst of the Business Innovation Factory) and I  started a brief discussion (during that fabulous hockey game) about institutions that are irrelevant, outdated for today's world.  Saul mentioned how our workforce development system is designed for an industrial economy.  That got me thinking - can any of us name 3 'institutions' in America today that are designed for our new world and new economy?  Saul wondered "perhaps 21st century is more about purposeful networks than institutions."   Perhaps it is - and perhaps it is about both!

We're seeing the death of institutions (that can't or won't adapt), the creation of new institutions, and the morphing of existing institutions.  An article in the current (March) issue of Wired, part of their series on the Future of Money , they talk about all the new modes of 'paying' for things that no longer involve an individual's interaction with an actual, traditional bank (not that it may happen behind the scenes).  Now while we've seen this with credit cards and with PayPal, non-traditional finance/banking institutions are on the rise.

So what institutions do you see that are morphing? what new institutions do you see emerging or should emerge? 

 Take comfort dear Americans - Goldman Sach's dedication to democracy is steadfast - We all know how they screwed American in the financial crisis and seemed to have come out ok (compared to their customers and competitors) - and now, lo and behold, it seems they had a hand in Greece's problems !  Yesterday's NYT had an article about Goldman's 'creative' financial solutions to Greece, the WSJ has had some...well at least we know we weren't as 'special' as we thought huh? May this be all we have in common with the EU!!!