Abuse of the language, "inevitable."

Many outlets have news of the Franken lead, and the Supreme Court decision, [which Joe Bodell at Minnesota Progressive links to, here, courtesy of the Uptake], so you can download the Court's pdf file and read the original item.

And I suppose I could find this abusive usage other than at one place, but this is my source, Dave Orrick and Rachel Stassen-Berger of PiPress explained the situation:

"Today's [Minnesota Supreme Court] ruling, which effectively disregards the votes of hundreds of Minnesotans, ensures that an election contest is now inevitable," Fritz Knaak said in a noon statement.

Just hours before the Minnesota canvassing board is slated to declare Democrat Al Franken the winner of the long-running U.S. Senate race, the state Supreme Court today dealt Coleman a blow.

Coleman had asked the court to force reconsideration of 654 absentee ballots his campaign said may have been rejected in error. In its decision today, the court essentially said he will have to seek redress for that complaint in an election lawsuit after the canvassing board acts.

Now, the PiPress opening paragraph:

Shortly after the state Supreme Court this morning rejected Republican Norm Coleman's last hope to stop the U.S Senate recount, Coleman's attorney said a post-election lawsuit is "inevitable."

First linguistic nuance, always someone bleats, "inevitable." So, is there such a word as "evitable" and what might it mean? Use of the negativing prefix suggests the word exists.

My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [not too fat, not too thin, just right] has the definition:

evitable: avoidable

Okay. I like that.

A judicial fight is entirely avoidable, if only Norm Coleman would fold his hand and avoid wasting time and money in further contesting of things - the exact step he urged upon Al Franken months ago, back in the days immediately following election day.

Norm, just do it. It is evitable.

Tell your attorney that.

Nothing about going to court is "inevitable." The man has abused the English language without excuse. Get a new lawyer.

Caroline Kennedy - elitism and birth rights, in a purported democracy - or what might young Jeb and Sarah Palin [without the money and bloodline] say?

Privilege is nothing new to how America runs. But Caroline Kennedy has been a lightening rod in ways that George W. Bush and younger brother Jeb sidestepped. Is it gender, differing times, better vs. less skilled handlers, or regional differences between New York and Texas and Florida? Remember New York is the state that embraced Bobby Kennedy and Hilary Clinton, carpet bags and all.

Since succession to the Wellstone seat is the overriding current Senate issue in Minnesota questions of succession to the Bobby Kennedy - Hilary Clinton seat take a back seat, locally.

However, the situation is interesting. Start with "The limits of celebrity" a Calgary reprint of an Ottawa paper's op-ed:

The New York Times headline calls her "forceful but elusive." In reading the transcript of Caroline Kennedy's interview, it becomes clear that the headline writer was being kind.

Kennedy, having spent a lifetime avoiding the media, is now giving a round of interviews about her candidacy for Hillary Rodham Clinton's vacated Senate seat. So it's understandable that she's a little uncomfortable. That might explain the defensive and opaque responses to reporters' questions, and the painful repetition of the space-filling tic "you know."

But she is a well-connected and wealthy person, with every opportunity to learn how to express her opinions. She grew up in a family full of politicians and activists. If she hasn't grasped the basics of public speaking and public policy, despite all her advantages, she probably isn't ready for a Senate seat.

It's also worth noting that she can't turn her rookie status to political advantage. She's not an unpolished populist, coming up from the lower classes to challenge the elite. She is the elite. If vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin had told reporters something like, "This is not, you know, about me, it's about what I can do to, you know, help New York get its fair share, help working families, travel the state, bring attention to what is going on up there,"Democrats would have guffawed and Republicans would have blamed the "East Coast liberal media" for setting her up. When it's an East Coast liberal who's flustered and vague, it's hard for partisans to know their roles.

In the Times interview, Kennedy referred several times to her "family tradition" and to the potential benefits, to her constituents, of having a celebrity speak for them. Neither her genes, nor her celebrity, are enough to make her a political candidate with something interesting to say.

Celebrity again the key word in a western New York LTE from a Buffalo reader, "The last thing we need is a celebrity senator":

So Caroline Kennedy always wanted to be a senator just like her daddy and her uncles, Bobby and Teddy. As the Church Lady might say, “Well isn’t that special.”

Most people probably don’t know that she does travel upstate, too. From the New York Times: “Ms. Kennedy said she had spent some time in the Catskills and the Adirondacks; when asked her favorite place in the state outside of the city and Long Island, she said, ‘I like visiting historical sites. I loved visiting the battlefields of Saratoga.’ ” And the New York City pols are falling all over themselves agreeing about how well qualified she is.

Someone described the honor guard surrounding her downstate trip as a phalanx. All she needed was a flatbed of trumpeters leading her motorcade crossing the Hudson to bring to mind those movies of Caesar riding triumphantly through the provinces on his way to Rome.

The other coast, Olympia Washington, an editorial with "privilege" the key wording, "Caroline Kennedy needs to earn the privilege of serving":

Caroline Kennedy's timing is impeccable. One shouldn't expect any less from someone whose surname is synonymous with "Camelot," all things gracious and semi-royal.

Problem is, her decision to finally put the family's sterling brand name to personal use has come too late. She shouldn't be rewarded with a New York Senate seat just because she wants it.

The backlash Kennedy is experiencing gives weight to the dawn of a new era: People are weary of those with influence calling the shots, expecting things that others earn, no matter how sincere the intention.

Kennedy's grab for the Senate seat that Gov. David Paterson must fill when Hillary Clinton moves to her appointment as secretary of state is a perfectly timed example.

Kennedy, now that she is finally acquiescing to interviews about her desire to be a senator, has said she felt called in part because of the Obama presidency.

"I think it's a special moment in my life and in the life of this country, where there is this unique opportunity to help bring change to Washington," she told The New York Times.

Yes, Obama has ignited a grassroots sense that everyone has a role to play in reshaping America. The idea that from the CEO to the parent leading the PTA, a civic role can be found. Kennedy is right to see the similarity of that message, and the messages of her father.

But the line was "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Not: what plum job your country can hand to you.

The rub is that the highly intelligent Kennedy likely would do a good job. Her connections with who's who in New York, her ability to solicit cooperation from differing segments of the social strata - all of that might bode well for a Sen. Caroline Kennedy, and by trickle-down for New York and the country.

But she'd need to earn the privilege of serving people, through an election. And that seems to be exactly what she has not wanted to do.

Kennedy has been squirrely about this. A New York Times reporter asked her repeatedly if she would have run for the seat, or if she'd consider contesting it in 2010 if she is not appointed. Kennedy dodged the question so assiduously that the reporter remarked, "It sounds like you only want it if it's handed to you."

Lower Hudson valley op-ed, "Kennedy needs to make her case for Senate":

Caroline Kennedy might make a fine senator from New York - or she might not.

It is hard to tell from what she has said so far.
Advertisement

Would she abolish tenure for teachers and offer them merit pay instead? She declined to tell The New York Times.

Would she repeal President Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy immediately?

"Well, you know, that's something, obviously, that, you know, in principle and in the campaign, you know, I think that, um, the tax cuts, you know, were expiring and needed to be repealed," she was quoted by the Daily News as saying.

That seems to be a yes, but hardly a straightforward one.

What prompted her to seek the seat?

Two events, she told The Associated Press: the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and her work for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

"Many people remember that spirit that President Kennedy summoned forth," she said of her father. "Many people look to me as somebody who embodies that sense of possibility. I'm not saying that I am anything like him, I'm just saying there's a spirit that I think I've grown up with that is something that means a tremendous amount to me."

Why would she be a good senator?

"So I think in many ways, you know, we want to have all kinds of different voices, you know, representing us, and I think what I bring to it is, you know, my experience as a mother, as a woman, as a lawyer, you know, I've been an education activist for the last six years here, and you know, I've written seven books - two on the Constitution, two on American politics," she told The New York Times.

"So obviously, you know, we have different strengths and weaknesses," she said.

Since Kennedy emerged as a possible replacement for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, she has been criticized relentlessly. New York does not need another celebrity senator, her detractors say. Seasoned lawmakers should be considered over such a political novice.

If Clinton is confirmed as Obama's secretary of state, it would be up to Gov. David Paterson to choose her replacement. At first Kennedy was faulted for avoiding the press, then for giving less-than-eloquent explanations of why she should be chosen.

The "you knows" sprinkled throughout her responses prompted more articles than any position she took, and lots of unsolicited advice from speech coaches. She acknowledged she had not mastered the sound bite, her spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said.

"But if Gov. Paterson appoints her, she'll fight her heart out to make sure New York families have their voices heard in Washington," he said.

I'm not among the critics who carp about political dynasties. She has an interesting résumé, she might do well for New York in the Senate, but she will have to make a stronger case for herself. Perhaps it is her inexperience, but she has not shown the forcefulness she will need to convince New York that she should take Clinton's place.

Embodying a sense of possibility is insufficient. She needs to say which policies she supports and which, such as school vouchers, she does not. She needs to say how she would harness that sense of possibility. What would she do with it? She cannot be coy even if she must introduce herself to New Yorkers while not appearing to pressure the governor, a worry she would not have if she were running for the seat rather than seeking an appointment.

Clinton herself had no experience as an elected official. She had worked to elect her husband and had been the first lady for eight years, but had never won a seat for herself. Still, we knew what her interests were, we knew about her attempts to reform health care and improve education. [...]

National Review, "Like Son Jeb as President":

Former President Bush (there's currently only one of those!) has endorsed his other governor-son for president. As we await David Paterson's Caroline Kennedy Senate appointment, I have to think that Jeb for President is not the craziest idea. Jeb for President can't happen four years from now. But if Jeb Bush runs for the Martinez Senate seat and puts in some hard time there, voters might consider the presidential possibility, even if he would be a third Bush (the media is another story and might make a win impossible). [...]

Gawker:

Future magic unicorn senator Caroline Kennedy was the only New York City employee who got to avoid disclosing her assets when she worked for the schools. That's right: Kennedy was privileged.

Granted, that surprises basically no one, since Kennedy's last name and family privilege is the only reason she's looking like a shoo-in for a job she's utterly unqualified to hold.

But it is interesting how much of a free pass the prospective New York senator got in her work for the city Department of Education from 2002 to 2004, judging from today's Times story.

Kennedy was apparently the only person in the entire city government who got to aboid filing a 32-page personal financial disclosure form. Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who like Kennedy earned only $1 per year in salary, had to disclose his assets. Kennedy's two top deputies had to disclose. Two other top officials with nominal salaries had to disclose. Kennedy got pass.

How? The city keeps changing its answer:

City officials have most often pointed to Ms. Kennedy’s decision to accept $1-a-year in salary. More recently, Joel I. Klein, chancellor of New York’s schools, explained that she was ultimately exempt from the requirement because the department did not deem her to be a “policymaker.”

The Times has been hammering Kennedy on this issue. It already mentioned her pass from the city in a story two weeks ago, in which Kennedy refused to make detailed financial disclosures to the Times itself.

The only trouble? No one is alleging that Kennedy has any ill-gotten riches. It's mildly upsetting that she got a pass on some public disclosure laws, but fault for that lies with the city. The problem is that Kennedy couldn't get financially crafty if she wanted to. The U.S. Senate will eat this woman alive.

That is enough for a flavor, see mainstream media, here, here, here, and here.

In Britain, it is impolite to ask the Queen to explain herself, beyond what she cares to say. There is a taste of that expectation either actual or read by some into the way Caroline Kennedy has posed herself, arguably too circumspect in some ways, too bold in others.

But, so what? If Norm Coleman goes to the Senate, it's been cheapened enough that faulting Ms. Kennedy in any way for that body is out of line. She can buy her own clothing. That distinguishes her from Palin and, believing stories about Kazeminy largess, our Sen. Coleman. And when comparing the Bush clan to the Kennedy clan, sure the luggage is set down in differing parties, but who exactly did Joe Kennedy or Preston Bush like in the 30's, in Germany, as best for the situation? Also, each dynasty is bare-knuckle to larcenous, depending on who's telling the story - be it Cook County 1960 election returns to defeat Nixon, plus the Joe Kennedy legend, or Bush in Florida in 2000, in Ohio in 2004. Is this Kennedy above such frays - separate and apart from lower motive; change anyone might believe in, from a Kennedy?

_______________
WaPo photo, here.

Opinions differ, I think Amy is correct, and that only sore heads filibuster.

Click the screenshot from Politico, to enlarge and read it, or link to the original and read the entire item.

A filibuster. What kind of low life would do that?



As to kinds of low life, Texas low life in particular, see earlier Crabgrass posts, here and here.

Is this current threat quid pro quo playing out? Is it knee jerk partisanship? Is it both?

_________
WaPo reports four Senate seats involve uncertainties. Also, Politico's vote count is short of current, Strib most recently reporting, "Senate race certification set for Monday with Franken up 225 votes."

Here is what I see as important, if the GOP and Coleman people are adamant, and there is not a filibuster proof Senate majority, what happens, irrespective of any current canvassing board and Minnesota Court activity and decisions? Isn't all that irrelevant? So, what happens if the GOP digs in its heels? I say at least make them filibuster, make them make a public spectacle of themselves being small partisan obstructionists.

But all the rest is window dressing to what the Senate will do. It is their constitutional perogative and power. Nobody else holds the hammer.

A screenshot rerun, that should be titled, "Not Exactly."

We have to think that neither Norm Coleman nor his campaign people thought, back on Nov. 5, 2008, when they ran the splash lead-in item set out above (from the Coleman campaign website the day after election day), that it might prove ironic.

Irony seems to be set, with Strib today reporting, "Minnesota canvassing board expected to say that Democrat Al Franken is winner in Senate race."

Crowing now may be premature, even ironic, but I have more faith in saying FRANKEN WON IT than the Coleman folks ought to have held in their then deciding to run that splash screen roostering.

I even think they may have been trying to tailor public opinion - that the Coleman folks actually would do that kind of crass and classless kind of thing.

Against Al.

Does this critter look insulted?

See, MnIndy Senate recount reporting, including comments.

Comments are being moderated.

Spammers have posted comments on three recent Crabgrass posts. I shut them down. I will now have to be moderating comments. Some of the spam items had what appeared to be commercial links. Because linked sites can introduce malware, I don't want the garbage on the blog. Now, real reader comments will take time to show up, with moderation in place. Sorry.

Israeli military enters Gaza in ground campaign.

Strib online carries the AP wire feed from after the initial IDF ground crossing into Gaza.

Haaretz earlier reported:

The IDF said rocket fire on the south was expected to continue during a ground operation. The army recommends that a diplomatic exit plan be prepared while a cease-fire agreement is formulated.

While defense officials tend to favor a clear agreement with Hamas, even if it is not enshrined in a written document, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is considering another idea.

She reportedly believes that it might be better to aim for a situation in which there is no clearly set-out agreement, but Israel would make clear beforehand that it would respond forcefully to any firing from Gaza after hostilities ended.

Olmert, for his part, has conditioned any future truce between Israel and Hamas on the establishment of an international mechanism to monitor the cease-fire.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said Wednesday that Israeli attacks on Gaza had to stop before any truce proposals could be considered. He added in a speech that "the siege must be lifted and all the crossings must be opened because the siege is the source of all of Gaza's problems."

Olmert told cabinet ministers on Wednesday that Israel would not conclude its operation until all its goals had been reached.

Senior Hamas official Ayman Taha said Wednesday that his organization was willing to consider a proposal that would end the Israeli attack and end the siege of the Gaza Strip.

"As soon as we receive a proposal, we will study it," Taha said. "We support any initiative that would end the aggression and lift the siege."

According to Jerusalem sources, Olmert's conditions for a truce were passed on to the United States and other entities in the international community. The U.S. is trying to "sell" Israel's conditions to other groups, including those that talk to Hamas.

"We must reach a long-term and stable cease-fire Hamas will honor," Bush said.

Also on the table is a Turkish-Egyptian push for a cease-fire. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Damascus on Wednesday and is slated to arrive in Cairo today.

Turkish president Abdullah Gul Wednesday told Israeli president Shimon Peres that "Turkey wants a cease-fire that will last."

"Other countries in the region take advantage of Hamas, which could lead to a deterioration in the entire Middle East," he added.

In addition, the European Union is attempting to broker a cease-fire deal. On Monday, a delegation including the foreign minister of the Czech Republican - which currently holds the EU presidency rotation, the Swedish foreign minister and the EU foreign affairs commissioner, is slated to arrive in the region.

In addition, French president Nicolas Sarkozy and foreign minister Bernard Kouchner are scheduled to arrive Monday.

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni will meet the pair in Paris ahead of that visit.

Juan Cole blogs, Angry Arab has this republished Algerian cartoon:



Haaretz homepage. This Haaretz op-ed excerpt:

We so badly wanted to hope that the replacement of the failed defense leadership from the Second Lebanon War, Barak's record as a watch tinkerer and crafty military planner, and the training and re-equipping of the Israel Defense Forces over the past year would result in something new and different. And then indeed it happened: Saturday's air strike gave Israelis a sweet moment of nostalgia for the heroic tales of earlier generations.

But it was an illusion. The Cast Lead got stuck in the throat, just like all previous operations of its type. The war in Gaza is starting to resemble the past confrontations in Lebanon with the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hezbollah. It's hard to stop after carrying out a hard-hitting reprisal action. Israel believes that a little more pressure will prompt the enemy to surrender, but is hesitant to pay the price that would be exacted by a ground operation, and does not want to be dragged into a reoccupation of Gaza.

The only question is which will hold out longer - Hamas or Israeli public support.

Olmert. From the prime minister's perspective, as of yesterday, everything was going according to the plan presented to the cabinet at the outset, aside from two surprises: Hamas was hurt worse than expected, and the Israeli home front was hurt less. There's no reason to stop, or to pressure ourselves, before the goals are achieved. Ehud Olmert decided that the war would be run in accordance with a "success strategy" and not an "exit strategy," and that he would handle all the diplomatic contacts. As of yesterday, he was still waiting for a good proposal from the key international players. Until it is forthcoming, the fighting will continue.

Livni. During this war, the foreign minister is playing a wholly different role than in the Second Lebanon War. Back then, Tzipi Livni acted as a moderating force, opposed to escalation, searching for "exit opportunities" and trying to push Olmert in the direction of diplomacy. This time, Livni situated herself in a difficult position for any foreign minister - to the right of the defense minister. This is what happens when an election is on the horizon.

Yesterday, Livni traveled to Paris for a few hours - not to hold negotiations for a diplomatic accord, but to explain Israel's position to the French. She is wary of an agreement that would grant legitimacy to Hamas, and would like to see the war conclude with "deterrence": Israel will keep on attacking until Hamas stops shooting.

Melancholy thought No. 1. The conflict between Israel and the Arabs is beginning to resemble the wars we studied in history class, the Hundred Years' War and the Thirty Years' War and World Wars I and II. In those conflicts, too, the fighting was not continuous; instead there were outbreaks of concerted violence punctuating periods of calm. So it is with us: Each time the operation has a new name, the objectives change, as does the enemy's identity, but the principle remains the same - one side sees an opportunity to change the status quo to its benefit, and initiates another round of violence. Sometimes it works, as it did for Egypt in 1973. Sometimes, you end up back where you started, as in Lebanon in 2006.

The deal. If the war ends in a draw, as expected, and Israel refrains from reoccupying Gaza, Hamas will gain diplomatic recognition. No matter what you call it - international mediation, a combination of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his people in Gaza or even "calm plus," Hamas will obtain legitimacy. After three years of some success in isolating Hamas among the international community, Israel is currently searching for mediators who have the phone numbers of Khaled Meshal, the organization's political leader in Damascus, and Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas co-founder. The Foreign Ministry, which took pride in the quick formulation of an "exit strategy" during the last war, did not properly prepare this time. While the air force was gathering intelligence about targets, the diplomats were not preparing drafts for a cease-fire or building an array of potential mediators for an emergency. This was evident in the chaotic response to the French cease-fire proposal.

Bibi. Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be the war's big loser. His rise in the polls was already stalling, and this week he was left outside the decision-making circle and resumed his old post as an English-speaking talking head on television, while his rivals were busy overseeing the military campaign. This is an illusion, of course. If the operation is successful, Netanyahu will say it's because they listened to his advice. If the operation falls short, Bibi will say that he would have done a better job of it. In the CNN studios, unlike the cabinet room and the chief of staff's headquarters, it's hard to make fateful mistakes. This puts Netanyahu in what will ultimately be a near-certain win-win situation. Unless, of course, Barak manages to bring Gilad Shalit home, to completely crush Hamas in one week, or to pull off some other magic trick.

What has changed since the reprisal operations of the 1950s? Then, Moshe Dayan said, "It was in our power to set a high price for our blood, a price too high for the Arab community, the Arab army, or the Arab governments to think it worth paying." Israel is following the same logic today. The main difference is that today the Arab side has a steadily growing deterrent capability of its own - rocket fire on the Israeli home front - that somewhat balances out the IDF's aerial superiority. Israel showed Hamas that it's not afraid to bomb Gaza, but the rules of the game have changed on the other side, too: Before the war, they fired at Sderot and Ashkelon; now they're firing at Ashdod and Be'er Sheva, too.

Preserving Hamas. The Gaza war has been the first test of the strategy formulated by the IDF after the Second Lebanon War, which holds that if the government is one of terror, then its institutions are to be destroyed. The idea was to threaten the destruction of Lebanon if Hezbollah were to attack Israel again. But its first implementation was in Gaza, where institutions such as the education ministry were destroyed, because it is headed by Hamas. Gabi Ashkenazi's IDF spearheaded the view that Gaza is a Hamas state, while the political echelon was hesitant to call it that.

The experts propounding this strategy recommend that it not be taken too far, that Hamas should still be preserved, so that Gaza doesn't fall apart into a rule of militias and gangs who would be impossible to deter and would continue to launch rockets at Israel. Hit Hamas hard, but don't destroy it completely. Israel needs a "diplomatic address" in Gaza as a basis for armed coexistence. As with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

On that last thought, this earlier op-ed.

For a sampling, al Jazeera homepage, BBC, Globe and Mail, Guardian, Reuters here and here, Egypt in an awkward posture here and here plus Angry Arab (also here, here, here and here), Jerusalem Post here and here, and specific Haaretz items here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here about advance notice to Egypt before Isreali air strikes began, and here. [Photo from here.]

The US had its "shock and awe" and "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq; and the truth on the ground was different than from the initial days in the air, as with Israel in Lebanon in 2006; where they had the good sense to draw back.

Would YOU like to see US troops take part in an international "peacekeeping" role at the Gaza border? That idea of an "international force," let them give the contract to Korea, Brazil and Japan, and let the Saudis and Kuwaitis pick up the tab. Somebody has to pick up the tab, and the Isrealis seem to be pointing offshore. Europe, the US, and Arab states would have to stay off the ground - the first two because of past reach at empire, and the latter as having an arguable kinship with the Palestinians. Although Hamas has not had much love from the Sunni monarchs [one obligatory fatwa]. Iran, Syria and Lebanon [Hezbollah included, with talk but not action] have kept their distance. Asian tongue clucking. The Gazans will be going it alone. West Bank leadership has bickered enough to have cause to want a Hamas vacuum to ensue, one they can fill. Or at least they'd prefer containment of Hamas to Gaza, without any strong presence in other neighborhoods.

What else? The grand prize for mootness, you pick, either here or here. Israel's internal op-ed self-doubt, hesitancy and uncertainty, here, here, here, here and here, the last item discussing exit strategy, and portraying Abbas and the Jordanian king as fearfully viewing Hamas as a public health contagion to be kept from spreading.

Finally, Hamas founders were educated and not dummies, and CFR and Wikipedia have background, here and here, respectively.

_____UPDATE________
Here. More balanced, less slanted but with some op-ed, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Guardian, here, here, here and here. Opinions differ. AP wire feed, here. Interesting, here and here. Opinions differ. Bush seems to have a simplistic propagandistic view. Hamas denies right of existence to Israel as a state, professes a willingness toward Jewish and Arabs living together in a Palestinian state, with return of refugees being a main point of failures to agree between the camps. Hamas seems to view the Oslo accords as flawed, as do many Israelis. Fatah seems content with the Olso accords, as do many Israelis. Egypt seems content with Fatah, less so with Hamas. Jordan mirrors Egypt, but neither has oil, as the Saudis do. Palestinians in Iraq, see here, here, here and here. In Lebanon, here, here, here and here. The PBS photo is from 1948. The Palestine diaspora. Those displaced have not had an easy time. Return, however, does not seem to be in the cards - at least short or mid-term. Long term, who knows?