If reporting is, as I suspect, a record of mankind's folly, then the end of
  2008 is proving my point. 
Let's kick off with the man who is not going to change the Middle East, Barack
  Obama, who last week, with infinite predictability, became Time's "person
  of the year". But buried in a long and immensely tedious interview
  inside the magazine, Obama devotes just one sentence to the Arab-Israeli
  conflict: "And seeing if we can build on some of the progress, at least
  in conversation, that's been made around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  will be a priority."
What is this man talking about? "Building on progress?" What
  progress? On the verge of another civil war between Hamas and the
  Palestinian Authority, with Benjamin Netanyahu a contender for Israeli prime
  minister, with Israel's monstrous wall and its Jewish colonies still taking
  more Arab land, and Palestinians still firing rockets at Sderot, and Obama
  thinks there's "progress" to build on?
I suspect this nonsensical language comes from the mental mists of his future
  Secretary of State. "At least in conversation" is pure Hillary
  Clinton - its meaning totally eludes me - and the giveaway phrase about
  progress being made "around" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
  even weirder. Of course if Obama had talked about an end to Jewish
  settlement building on Arab land - the only actual "building"
  that is going on in the conflict - relations with Hamas as well as the
  Palestinian Authority, justice for both sides in the conflict, along with
  security for Palestinians as well as Israelis, then he might actually effect
  a little change.
An interesting test of Obama's gumption is going to come scarcely three months
  after his inauguration when he will have a little promise to honor. Yup,
  it's that dratted 24 April commemoration of the Armenian genocide when
  Armenians remember the 1.5 million of their countrymen - citizens of the
  Ottoman empire slaughtered by the Turks - on the anniversary of the day in
  1915 when the first Armenian professors, artists and others were taken off
  to execution by the Ottoman authorities.
Bill Clinton promised Armenians he'd call it a "genocide" if they
  helped to elect him to office. George Bush did the same. So did Obama. The
  first two broke their word and resorted to "tragedy" rather than "genocide"
  once they'd got the votes, because they were frightened of all those
  bellowing Turkish generals, not to mention - in Bush's case - the US
  military supply routes through Turkey, the "roads and so on" as
  Robert Gates called them in one of history's more gripping ironies, these
  being the same "roads and so on" upon which the Armenians were
  sent on their death marches in 1915. And Mr Gates will be there to remind
  Obama of this. So I bet you - I absolutely bet on the family cat - that
  Obama is going to find that "genocide" is "tragedy" by
  24 April.
By chance, I browsed through Turkish Airlines' in-flight magazine while
  cruising into Istanbul earlier this month and found an article on the
  historical Turkish region of Harput. "Asia's natural garden", "a
  popular holiday resort", the article calls Harput, "where churches
  dedicated to the Virgin Mary rise next to tombs of the ancestors of Mehmet
  the Conqueror".
Odd, all those churches, isn't it? And you have to shake your head to remember
  that Harput was the centre of the Christian Armenian genocide, the city from
  which Leslie Davis, the brave American consul in Harput, sent back his
  devastating eyewitness dispatches of the thousands of butchered Armenian men
  and women whose corpses he saw with his own eyes. But I guess that all would
  spoil the "natural garden" effect. It's a bit like inviting
  tourists to the Polish town of Oswiecim - without mentioning that its German
  name is Auschwitz.
But these days, we can all rewrite history. Take Nicolas Sarkozy, France's
  cuddliest ever president, who not only toadies up to Bashar al-Assad of
  Syria but is now buttering up the sick and awful Algerian head of state
  Abdelaziz Bouteflika who's just been "modifying" the Algerian
  constitution to give himself a third term in office.
There was no parliamentary debate, just a show of hands - 500 out of 529 - and
  what was Sarko's response? "Better Bouteflika than the Taliban!" I
  always thought the Taliban operated a bit more to the east - in Afghanistan,
  where Sarko's lads are busy fighting them - but you never can tell. Not
  least when exiled former Algerian army officers revealed that undercover
  soldiers as well as the Algerian Islamists (Sarko's "Taliban")
  were involved in the brutal village massacres of the 1990s.
Talking of "undercover", I was amazed to learn of the training
  system adopted by the Met lads who put Jean Charles de Menezes to death on
  the Tube. According to former police commander Brian Paddick, the Met's
  secret rules for "dealing" with suicide bombers were drawn up "with
  the help of Israeli experts". What? Who were these so-called "experts"
  advising British policemen how to shoot civilians on the streets of London?
  The same men who assassinate wanted Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
  and brazenly kill Palestinian civilians at the same time? The same people
  who outrageously talk about "targeted killings" when they murder
  their opponents? Were these the thugs who were advising Lady Cressida Dick
  and her boys?
Not that our brave peace envoy, Lord Blair, would have much to say about it.
  He's the man, remember, whose only proposed trip to Gaza was called off when
  yet more "Israeli experts" advised him that his life might be in
  danger. Anyway, he'd still rather be president of Europe, something Sarko
  wants to award him. That, I suppose, is why Blair wrote such a fawning
  article in the same issue of Time which made Obama "person" of the
  year. "There are times when Nicolas Sarkozy resembles a force of nature,"
  Blair grovels. It's all first names, of course. "Nicolas has the
  hallmark of any true leader"; "Nicolas has adopted..."; "Nicolas recognizes"; "Nicolas reaching out...". In all, 15 "Nicolases".
  Is that the price of the Euro presidency? Or will Blair now tell us he's
  going to be involved in those "conversations" with Obama to "build
  on some of the progress" in the Middle East?