Talking Data Recovery In Irvine

dritaThere are a number of services when you’re looking for data recovery in Irvine. If you are seeking one, you have to be careful in choosing because you might end up with the wrong service. So to start with, consider the reliability of the company providing your recovery. You have to know whether the technicians in that company are licensed and skilled. Do not rely on their verbal claims; rather take time to research on the feedback given by their previous clients. Weighing this feedback can give you an idea on how reliable or expert the technicians are. Second, consider also the pricing of their services when compared to others in Orange County. This means that you should take time to make comparisons with their services so that you can identify which one offers the best pricing as possible. If you want the most affordable offer, you can find it if you research well. The cheapest services do not mean the lowest quality. It is just that, some technicians offer affordable data recovery services than others.

Lastly, consider other needs like efficiency and effectiveness. Make sure that the technician can deliver the services at the specified time without the need for further data recovery Irvine. Know how effective and efficient the technician can deliver your needs.

The Best Way To Recover A Poweredge RAID

Poweredge RAID servers are so important because it is where your files are saved. If you are the type of individual who stores a lot of music files, documents, pictures and many others, it will be very difficult on your part to have it again once the RAID is destroyed. This is the reason why you have to recover Poweredge RAID issues right away. Basically, there are a lot of options available to recover Poweredge RAIDs. This includes using the services of an expert computer technician. If you do not know anything about computers, you can have the RAID fixed right away through them. They know exactly how to repair the damaged RAID and retrieve the files that are lost. However, you just have to search the best technician who can deliver the right services for your needs.

Furthermore, you can also repair the RAID by downloading and buying software. This software is available in the internet. Once you purchase it, you will have to follow the instructions given and you will successfully retrieve the RAID if you do not miss any of them. Follow the steps one by one and you can recover Poweredge RAID servers without a lot of hassles and burden.

Information About Skin Tags

iastSkin tags are growths, which develop on the skin at different places in many people. The medical term used for this is acrochordon. They may resemble small balloons hanging from the skin with a bit of pigmentation. Some assume the color of the individual’s flesh. The people who are most at risk of growing skin tags are those who are obese and middle aged people. Sometimes, pregnant women experience these growths as a symptom, probably due to the hormonal changes that occur. However, a fact that you ought to remember is that just about anybody can develop skin tags. Skin tag removal products are one means through which some people choose to get rid of these growths. Others opt for such approaches like freezing and even cutting.

Skin tags are generally not harmful to the body. When people choose to have them removed, it is simply because they feel that these tags flaw their bodies. Provided you do not irritate them through constant twisting, there really is nothing much to worry about. Skin tag removal products are only sought because those who have these tags often do not feel comfortable with bumps on their skin. Sometimes, when the skin tissues surrounding the tags die, the appearance may not be appealing and this is a factor that motivates many people to look for a solution.

Why Would You Need To Remove Skin Tags?

Several people suffer from the unappealing presence of skin tags on their bodies. Usually, you may not have any predisposition to grow such tags and yet still develop them. Those who are obese and have slightly advanced ages are more at risk of growing these tumors. They may not bring much irritation or even pain to you, but may be irritating nonetheless. The good news for many people is that they can actually get to remove these tags. There are a number of means through which they can be alleviated. One approach, which is gaining popularity, is the use of skin tag removal products, which are simply applied to the affected area.

The prime factor that leads people to look for skin tag removal products is cosmetic. When these tags usually begin to grow, they may be small in size. However, in some people, they may grow to significant sizes, which will make them more pronounced. This gives them the urge to look for means of getting rid of them. Sometimes, when the skin tissues surrounding the tags die, the growths can be unsightly. They will be darker and many people can simply not stand this. For some people however, skin tags are not a huge problem and they can stay on since they do not cause any pain.

A Comparison Of Anti-Snoring Pillows

bspThe stop snoring pillows are specially created to help the person take the right position during sleep, and prevent himself from snoring. Although all pillows of this kind have the same purpose, they are not all the same, and among various brands and designs, it is important to choose the right one.

The Brookstone anti snore pillow have three levels of supports that can be adjusted, and it is made of memory foam. While many people said they finally had some rest thanks to this pillow, other say it is not worth the $100 they spent on it. The Obus Forme fits the standard pillow case, and it is a bit hard than a standard pillow because of its memory foam. People are usually very satisfied with this pillow, especially because it is comfortable and it costs only $50. The Silentnight pillow is made of non allergenic hollow fiber, and it is recommended to be washed by hands. Just like with previous products, the opinions are divided when it comes to this pillow, but it is worth a try. There are a lot of articles on SnoreEzzz, which is one of the stop snoring pillows that offer a 30 day money guarantee, so many people think it should be tried.

Sona Vs Snore-No-More Pillow

Even when it comes to regular pillows, choosing the right one can be very challenging, but in case of snoring, it is important to find the product that works. The stop snoring pillows are supposed to position the head so the airflow is normal through the throat, and there is no snoring. Two most popular products of this kind on the market are Sona and Snore-no-more pillows, but which one is better?

The Snore-no-more pillow is designed by a doctor, which usually gives more confidence to potential users. It contains the hypoallergenic memory foam, and its size is standard, so any pillow case can fit. When it comes to its function, it elevates and aligns the head, and raises the chin, so the air can flow normally, and it does not produce the snoring sound. The best thing about this pillow is that is good for both side and back sleepers, so it works in both positions. Also, it appears to be favored by some of the smarter snoring websites. The Sona pillow is approved by the FDA, and it can reduce the mild sleep apnea. It is made completely of memory foam, with very fir cotton cover. It is mostly created for left and right side sleepers, and does not let the person roll onto the back.  Unlike other stop snoring pillows, this one allows the person put the arm normally under it.

Adding To The Madness Of Prism

America’s most secret weapons designs have apparently been snatched by the Chinese. How did it happen? The story can be told in three parts: how competing interests within the U.S. bureaucracy created the conditions for espionage; how China uniquely is prepared to exploit those conditions at relatively low cost; and how the Clinton administration has handled the unfolding scandal and damage to national security.

Since the nuclear National Laboratories (Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia) were established to meet the weapons needs of World War II and the Cold War, officials in charge have frequently confronted contradictory objectives. On the one hand, they need to attract the best possible talent with a campus-like atmosphere and the promise of full participation in the activities of the international scientific community; otherwise, they run the risk of attracting only the second-rate.

A job for Mulder and Scully??

A job for Mulder and Scully??

On the other hand, lab scientists are deeply involved in developing the nation’s most sensitive weapons secrets, requiring extraordinary security arrangements. A slip of the lip, or of the computer keyboard, can wipe out an American nuclear advantage almost instantaneously. The labs’ employees therefore are required to undergo extensive background checks, agree to monitoring of their communications, and adhere to strict rules about security.

Finding a balance here is difficult but not impossible. The labs enjoyed considerable autonomy and compiled a magnificent record during the Cold War. A big change, however, came when the oil shocks of the 1970s led to the creation of the Department of Energy, which subordinated the labs to a new Washington-based boss. This was never an easy arrangement.

As the Cold War ended and budgets tightened, the Energy Department not only sucked up resources that previously went directly to the labs, it tried to keep all three labs humming with less and less funding. Conflicts arose over priorities for spending and programs. For example, computers are indispensable to the labs, but government procurement seldom keeps pace with the state of the art, leading scientists to download their classified work onto faster, more convenient, but unsecured computers, producing new risks. In the labs, resentment against Washington festered.

It is against this background that the public squabble between the Department of Energy’s former acting chief of intelligence, Notra Trulock, and the labs and FBI should be seen. Trulock has testified that he tried to tighten security but was resisted by the labs as they sought to maintain an atmosphere conducive to academic work. Trulock wanted to put Wen Ho Lee out of work before he did more damage. Los Alamos wanted to avoid rushing to judgment. The FBI wanted to keep an eye on him to see whether he would lead to others. The White House sided with the FBI, some say because it wanted to protect the newly improving relationship with China.

Whatever the motivation of all the parties to this affair, the bureaucratic structure of the labs and the Energy Department created a fertile environment for things to go wrong, and for everyone to blame everyone else. Weak and absent leadership at the department compounded the problem. And, as the forthcoming Cox Commission report on Chinese intelligence activities is likely to show, the situation at Energy is hardly unique.

Enter the Chinese, with their unusually configured intelligence- collection capability. Unlike other powers, the Beijing regime does not rely only on a cadre of professional intelligence operatives to collect targeted intelligence. Rather, it supplements the professionals, who focus primarily on intelligence collection, by recruiting relatively large numbers of experts in many and diverse fields who have only part- time responsibility to report back intelligence information.

By increasing the number of part-time agents moving about American society, China magnifies the challenge for American counterintelligence at low cost to itself. Chinese assets strain the limited U.S. resources dedicated to tracking, impeding, and countering Chinese collection efforts. The scale of the Chinese effort requires a countervailing willingness on the part of American citizens to be vigilant about Chinese visitors, something many-given our freedoms-are unwilling to do.

The FBI had a distinguished team of counterintelligence experts on China up to the 1980s. The Bureau is now said to have gone through a generational change in personnel that has weakened the effort against Chinese intelligence in the short run, with a view to building a new team of China experts for the long run. Moreover, Americans readily come to like their Chinese friends. It is difficult to think that the thoroughly pleasant, skilled, and hospitable colleagues they have come to know would pour extra drinks just to discover new facets of weapons miniaturization or the vulnerabilities of American aircraft carriers.

In addition, U.S. relations with China suffer mood swings. Sometimes we are very much at odds with each other; at other times, the emphasis is on “building a constructive strategic partnership.” When the latter mood prevails, as now under the Clinton administration, the guard goes down for Americans, but China never loses its appetite for our secrets.

So, is China, with the opportunity to learn America’s most valuable secrets and the means to exploit them, about to leap years ahead in development of its military capabilities? Yes and no.

Assume that we have given China virtually total access to our most important secrets about nuclear weapons and missiles. Assume the same for every other sensitive weapons and intelligence system. To do otherwise is probably foolish, given the record revealed so far.

Beijing still will not be in a position to meet U.S. power unit for unit, or technology for technology. Rather, given China’s weaknesses and scarce resources, it will ferret out U.S. vulnerabilities and focus on those. Expect the Chinese to increase their efforts to develop sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-stealth technologies. They will concentrate on exploiting the vulnerabilities of our “information warfare” in satellites and communications facilities.

The most prominent issue raised by the Los Alamos case is nuclear- weapons miniaturization. Next in rank is access to the “legacy codes” of accumulated nuclear-testing data. Together, these exposures of vital information to Chinese intelligence may lead to an increase of Chinese nuclear firepower mounted on intercontinental missiles that might be aimed at the United States.

So far, however, China has not transformed its missile strike force to reflect these intelligence gains. Possessing only about two dozen liquid-fueled intercontinental missiles that could threaten the U.S., China has yet to be seen to test and field “MIRVS” on mobile solid-fuel rockets. China has long had problems converting theory into reality in the arena of weapons.

How about the Clinton administration’s responsibility? Or its allegations that responsibility really lies with the Reagan and Bush administrations? The evidence revealed so far suggests that there is plenty of blame for mismanagement and inattention to go around. Investigations of Wen Ho Lee began in 1984, yet he is accused of erasing sensitive computer files as late as this year.

Americans are likely to be subjected to further shocks as the extent of the security problem becomes clearer. Remedies will be sought. Sen. Richard Shelby, Republican of Louisiana, has introduced legislation banning foreigners from sensitive countries from visiting the National Laboratories. This seems a no-brainer, but would actually conflict with U.S. nonproliferation policy by prohibiting visits to the Cooperative Monitoring Center at Sandia, which coordinates supervision of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, among other activities.

Bill Bradley Never Doubted His Principles

Former senator Bill Bradley, Al Gore’s sole challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, has a message for you pale types out there: He knows better about race; he has infinitely more compassion and sensitivity than you; and if you only cared about your fellow man as much as he, we could live in a decent country. Chances are, you haven’t “struggled with race” all of your life, as he has. You haven’t been able to see the awful fact of your “skin privilege.” And you certainly didn’t play for the New York Knicks, which would have afforded you a chance to “live in a black world.”

If you think Bill Clinton and his vice president are self-righteous and sanctimonious about race-wait’ll you get a load of Bradley.

Bill Bradley remains an enigma.

Bill Bradley remains an enigma.

One thing Bradley says is absolutely true: He has talked about race from the beginning of his career, never stopping. He is forever saying that he “speaks from the heart”-this statement is a “cry from the heart”; that one is “straight from the heart”; why can’t the rest of us summon the “courage” to speak from our own “hearts”? His admirers say that his passion on the issue is genuine, and this is no doubt true. But he has the tendency, in the words of one close observer, to imagine that he is “the only truth-teller in all the world.” A former colleague notes that Bradley is “obsessed” with race, but almost “frozen in time,” as if he had fallen asleep in 1968. For him, there has never been any neoconservative critique: no Charles Murray, no Thernstroms- not even the early Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In Bradley’s mind, it often seems, drinking fountains are still separate, little girls in pretty dresses are being blown up in churches, and Bull Connor’s dogs continue to bark.

Facts, says one who has attempted to engage him, scarcely matter to him. “He is all sentimentality and emotion. If you argue to him, for example, the effects of illegitimacy on black poverty, he will look at you blankly or mock-sadly and come back with . . . what else? White racism. He has the reputation of a great and probing thinker, probably because he always looks serious, deep in thought, as though he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. But when it comes to actually contributing something useful, he offers nothing but banalities and his own, unyielding sense of moral superiority.”

One veteran congressional analyst, not at all unsympathetic to Bradley, sums it up this way: “If it’s possible to be a demagogue yet utterly sincere, Bradley is.”

That special brand of sincere demagoguery is on ample display as Bradley campaigns throughout the country. On April 20, he gave a widely applauded speech at New York’s Cooper Union, where Lincoln delivered a famous anti-slavery address. It was a typical Bradley race speech, long on the personal, the trite, and the unspecific. He talked about his “Aunt Bub,” a Missouri racist who often embarrassed her illustrious nephew-employing the worst epithets, for example-but who, it was discovered at her funeral, had a friendship with a black woman. (Let it not be said that Al Gore is the only candidate who makes public examples of dead relations.) Bradley announced that “I care about vanquishing racial discord from our hearts and spirit” and railed, as usual, against “white skin privilege,” a “great blind spot” that, among other things, renders white Americans unreasonably hostile to affirmative action.

Bradley’s rhetoric tends to go by in a haze of piety and pomposity. In New York, he urged a glorious racial reaching out, saying, “Start with your life and the life of a friend. Go from there to your parents, your dorm, your club, your team, and more friends. [No, this is not Amway.] Make racial unity a part of your being.” He included one of his stock paragraphs, which goes, “When Ronald Reagan was president, everyone knew that if you wanted to please the boss, you cut taxes, increased military spending, and fought Communism.” In the Age of Bradley, however, “if you want to please the boss, you’ll have to show how, in your department or agency, you’ve furthered tolerance and understanding.” What does he have in mind, apart from Clintonian quota- filling? He won’t say. He intends to keep mum about his policy positions until fall.

After his New York performance, Bradley traveled to Los Angeles, to speak on the seventh anniversary of the first Rodney King verdict, which sparked that city’s riots. He condemned Proposition 209-the ballot initiative that banned preferences in public institutions-as an example of “wedge politics used to fan the flames of suspicion.” In South Carolina, he called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the state capitol, which many in the media hailed as “bold.” Yet a conservative Republican governor had backed that action three years before. “When I was in the Senate,” Bradley bragged, “I would take . . . volatile issues like race and play to our greater interest”; but Gore, that model of temperateness, had been “more cautious.”

Bradley was born in 1943 and came to political awareness as the American racial cauldron was at a boil. Robert Kennedy made a profound impression on him-”He asked us to excel at being human”-as did Martin Luther King. His professional-basketball experience, too, had an undeniable effect. In this, he is similar to Jack Kemp, the old quarterback, of whom Newt Gingrich once admiringly quipped, “He has showered with more black people than most Republicans have ever even met.” Both Bradley and Kemp seem to treat their former careers as a special ticket to higher understanding. A couple of years ago, they delivered a joint lecture in Houston, which must have been one of the most self-congratulatory events in history. They denounced the Hopwood decision-which undermined preferences in Texas-as “tragic.”

Over the years, Bradley gained a reputation for being “thoughtful,” the word most frequently applied to him. After the L.A. riots, for instance, Time magazine went to him-he rained abuse on President Bush- and, in a photo caption, labeled him “a foot wiser than most pols.” Yet Bradley seldom serves up more than left-liberal pap. On affirmative action, he will brook no dissent whatsoever, nor even grant the humanity of the dissenter. He wrote three years ago, “The word ‘racist’ is overused. Most people aren’t brimming over with hatred. [So far, so calm.] To say that someone who opposes affirmative action is racist denies the possibility that the person may just be ignorant”! That’s about as generous as Bradley can get-and this was in the context of urging an open and brotherly discussion.

He then sketched out his view of recent history. Reagan, he claimed, “denied that there was any discrimination in America, much less racism.” Then came Bush, who was “a little better,” but who botched it with Clarence Thomas, “who, in an odd twist, turned the clock back.” As for efforts against affirmative action, “it is important to see how similar they are to the legal justification for segregation in the 19th century.” In this he cited the “brilliant” Kimberle Crenshaw of Columbia Law School, a pioneer in “critical race theory” who aided Anita Hill in her assault on Thomas. Crenshaw is one of Bradley’s preferred race experts, as is Derrick Bell, the professor who quit Harvard in a huff nine years ago over insufficient “diversity.” Even as Bradley has zero patience for right-of-center arguments-at a time when no less than Andrew Young has embraced school vouchers-he aligns himself with the most extreme thinkers on such matters.

Of course, he opposed the nomination of Robert Bork to the Court, questioning-no surprise here-the contents of the judge’s “heart”: “Is he sensitive to human and racial problems?” Bradley answered no and voted against Bork because, as he explained with characteristic humility, “I doubt that he has the commitment to civil rights and individual liberties on which the decency and well-being of our American community depends.”

Nor is Bradley averse to a little public melodrama. After the Rodney King verdict, he took to the Senate floor to bang his pencil on his desk 56 times-once for each of the blows struck against King by the Los Angeles police-while intoning, “Pow, pow, pow . . .” Bradley, who often decries “stereotyping,” “scapegoating,” and “fingerpointing,” simply assumed that it was “easier for an all-white jury to put themselves in the shoes of a white police officer than in the position of Rodney King.”

His crowning moment, however-a moment of which he remains manifestly proud-had occurred on July 10, 1991, when he delivered another speech on the Senate floor, this one billed as an “open letter” to President Bush. He ripped into Bush as though he were not a gracious, if awkward, Eastern patrician, but a hate-spewing, schoolhouse-door-blocking George C. Wallace. Bush had expressed reservations about the 1991 Civil Rights Act (which he eventually signed), causing Bradley to fear that the president would use race as a club in the following year’s campaign. As Bradley would later record, “something in me snapped.” He knew that “most independent voters and liberal Republicans did not consider themselves racist.” As for conservatives-well, that was a closed question.

Bradley’s speech is one of the nastiest, most arrogant, most absurd public utterances in memory. “Racial tension,” he began, without irony, “is too dangerous to exploit.” He demanded of Bush that he “tell us how you have worked through the issue of race in your own life”-without benefit of “speechwriter abstractions.” (This from a man who would go on to speak such sentences as, “Do you believe silence will muffle the gunshots of rising racial violence in our cities?”) His analysis of Republican political success is shocking to read even today. The Republicans, Bradley explained, are the party of the rich, the Democrats the party of the middle class and poor. Everyone knows that. So “how could the majority of voters have supported governments whose primary achievement was to make the rich richer?” Exactly: “The answer lies in the strategy and tactics” of the Republicans. They “interjected race into campaigns, to play on new fears and old prejudices, to drive a wedge through the middle class, to pry off a large enough portion to win.” That’s it: Republicans had induced ordinary Americans to subvert their own economic interests through race hatred.

A Nation At Birth

States come into being through an extraordinary interplay of choices and accidents. Like the awkward child that it is, the Palestinian state is set to emerge between two reluctant parents, Israel and Jordan, each wishing the other to take responsibility for what has happened, and both secretly dreaming of abortion. In a mood of resignation rather than expectation, the talk in Israel and Jordan is about the inevitability of this state. Its sovereignty will have to be qualified- but in which respects? Nobody can predict with any degree of certainty whether statehood will resolve the Palestinian dilemma or only recast it into another shape.

If you go into the jungle, as Kipling put it, you must be sure what size beast you are. To pursue that metaphor, the Palestinians were always a small and vulnerable animal. Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, for years lived in the hope that the Soviet Union would trample a protective way for him through the jungle. The resort to violence in order to achieve self-determination proved a self-inflicted injury, the path to suicide rather than statehood. The collapse of Communism freed Arafat from that mistake. In November 1988, he made his first unilateral declaration of statehood. This was to be achieved by peaceful means (though of course with violence in reserve up his sleeve). Whenever he sees fit, he repeats this declaration. The achievement of statehood has become the test-the crown-of his leadership.

If Israelis and Arabs cannot live together, then they must be separated. Sixty years ago, in a judgment worthy of King Solomon, a British commission inquiring into the Palestinian impasse of the day concluded that partition was the only way out. The logic of partition concludes in statehood for both parties. The Oslo accords of 1994 set that logic in motion, with an international stamp of approval. During an interim period of five years, negotiations were to address the head- on differences between Israelis and Palestinians-over borders, who has the right to live where, and the status of Jerusalem. Here was a peace process with Palestinian statehood and some measure of sovereignty implicit in it, all so neat and tidy and obvious.

During these five years, the Palestinians have been busy. Outward changes are impressive. Arafat now controls Gaza and the main towns of the West Bank, though not yet all the territory that he claims. The trappings of a state-flag, anthem, postage stamps, an airport-are all in place. Everywhere the cranes and cement-mixers are at work with an almost Israeli ferocity. Gaza is no longer the slum it was. The new boulevard in the city center, high-rise buildings, modern hotels-all are reminiscent of Beirut up the coast. Palatial villas in stone and marble adorn Gaza and all the West Bank towns. Huge Mercedes automobiles glide between them, and the men inside carry VIP passes.

Talk to the Palestinians, though, and the good news swiftly dries up. Now that the interim period of the Oslo accords is over, they see themselves in a kind of political limbo, rejecting any move backward but not properly masters of their own fate. Without resources, they have no alternative to economic and social dependence on Israel and Jordan. A state may be coming, but it will be a Potemkin one. Khalil Shikaki in Nablus conducts polls of Palestinian opinion. According to these polls, Arafat has never been so unpopular, with support down to 50 percent. The peace process receives consistently high support, but increasingly people fear that it is tending to a resumption of violence rather than to a state.

After the Oslo accords, Arafat set up the so-called Palestine Authority, supposedly to supersede the PLO, which ought to convert into a political party like any other, or simply disband now that its revolutionary aims have been redirected. The PA acquired a new legislative assembly, for the purposes of representing the people and initiating the institutions of the state. Elections to this assembly took place, but its members were mostly PLO or other loyalists pre- selected by Arafat. A Basic Law of the state has been drafted, but Arafat has not signed it. So in the PA there is no constitution, no rule of law, no due process, no accountability, no respect for human rights, no freedom of expression, not even welfare and social security. Arafat’s word is law. He rules supreme as he always did, through the PLO, now expanded with an armed police of some 40,000, and seven or eight secret-police and intelligence services. On a smaller scale, here is a reproduction of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Hafiz Assad’s Syria.

Under exactly the same emergency decrees passed long ago by the British, Israel currently holds 70 Palestinians in preventive detention, while the PA holds 200 of its own people. Some have been in custody without trial for three years. Most are suspected terrorists from Islamic movements, but some are oppositionists to Arafat, whom he finds it convenient to repress. PA loyalists argue that they are driven to such unlawful measures to satisfy Israeli demands for security.

Eighteen men have died in prison in suspicious circumstances. Twenty- five death sentences have been passed since the creation of the PA, and three men have been executed. One was a colonel, arrested at midnight on a charge of having raped a boy. The boy’s word was accepted unconditionally. An hour later, a military tribunal sentenced the colonel to death, and by three o’clock that same morning he was put before the firing squad.

The mere mention of some of the police chiefs-Muhammad Dahlan, for instance, or Jabril Rajoub-is enough to evoke fear and silence. “We are still a tribal society,” a Palestinian intellectual says to me, “we do not have a culture of rights and freedoms, and it will be many years before we can change.” There are clear-sighted and courageous men opposed to Arafat and his one-man rule. In the manner of Soviet dissidents they ask to be quoted by name on the grounds that publicity will protect them. As in the old Soviet times, though, an outsider can hardly take on himself to expose others to likely persecution.

In one of Shikaki’s polls, 70 percent of Palestinians think that the PA is corrupt, and the same percentage also believes that it will become worse. Arafat loyalists run protection rackets. Inspectors pocket the taxes they are supposed to collect. PLO-dependent judges and bureaucrats demand bribes. Immense funds from donor countries and other well-wishers reach Arafat, and he insists on retaining ultimate control of all monies. There is no proper auditing. Dispensing handouts, he retains his loyalists. Some of these boast about the cash they carry in suitcases. One of the marble villas in Gaza belongs to Abu Mazen, potentially a successor to Arafat, and it is no secret that it cost $2 million to build. Next door stands a similar villa built by the widow of a PLO loyalist shot dead in Tunis. The annual per capita income locally is $1,700.

“Will a Palestinian state not be a threat to Jordan rather than to Israel?” I ask a prominent Palestinian. “I should very much hope so,” comes the reply. In policymaking circles, it seems, the intention is to take over Jordan in the end by fair means or foul. The population there is already 70 percent Palestinian. Young King Abdullah may have to return to Mecca where his ancestors came from, or else stand and fight as his father once fought the PLO in its violent and unreconstructed period. Israeli politicians unanimously support Jordan as a buffer zone. The old Likud slogan that “Jordan is Palestine” has long outlived any validity it may have had. It is an irony that the Palestinians should adopt this right-wing Israeli slogan as their own.

The Israeli government today has to face the fact that the peace process is officially in abeyance and needs renewing. President Clinton is pressing hard for another interim period on the lines of the Oslo accords, in which to negotiate the issues that have locked down this whole dispute for so many years. The Europeans finger-wag and moralize. In a post-Kosovo world, any attempt to settle conflicting claims by force is likely to be heavily penalized. If only partition and statehood were as neat and tidy and obvious as logic suggests. What if the state that the Palestinians eventually acquire is hardly worth having, a mass of injustice and corruption, another Arab dictatorship endangering its own people and those around them?