Antony Loewenstein

My latest New Matilda column is about the favoured Palestinians in the West:

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be popular with western leaders, but under his watch the gulf between rhetoric and reality is growing, writes Antony Loewenstein

The Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, was interviewed earlier this month on ABC Radio National’s Saturday Extra. Host Geraldine Doogue opened her conversation with him with the following words:

“I’d like to introduce you now to a man you may not have heard too much about in Australia, but he is really coming into his political prime, and earning himself considerable international respect, because his basic day job is super-tough…[He’s] neither from the Fattah or Hamas parties, and he comes to this post via an unusual route, with an unusual suite of skills. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Texas; he’s worked for the World Bank and as a private banker; and some argue that even the Israelis are enchanted by him, and he certainly seems to be presiding over some much-wanted economic successes.”

Such effusive praise is typical of the Western media’s response to Fayyad. Newsweek recently profiled Fayyad but included a telling caveat: “Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s unorthodox approach is winning plaudits from the West. That could be his undoing”.

The fact that some people see Fayyad as a source of hope for the Middle East is itself a reflection of how jammed the situation really is. This week’s brief meeting in New York between Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will only confirm to sceptical Palestinians that “engagement” with Israel leads to never-ending meetings and photo opportunities. Hamas makes this exact point and they’re right. Israel refuses to cease settlement building and Washington is apparently unwilling to enforce Obama’s desire for a “settlement freeze”. No movement on Middle East peace talks actually means an ever-expanding occupation. The Palestinians lose every time.

Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy has even issued a challenge to Israel to conduct a referendum on the occupation on the grounds that while “most of [the Israeli public] says it supports the two-state solution … at the same time it votes for right-wing, centrist or pseudo-leftist parties that have no intention whatsoever of ending the occupation.”

Indeed, the vast gulf between rhetoric and reality has never been greater. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to announce the expansion of illegal colonies in the West Bank, the international community appears impotent to stop it. A European diplomat, quoted in JTA in early September, said: “It’s difficult to understand what the Israelis want when they announce that kind of thing. But it shouldn’t derail the process”.

Into the midst of this deadlock, Fayyad has recently announced that he will declare a Palestinian state in 2011 regardless of political progress with Israel. Reflecting this, Palestinian and European Union sources told Haaretz last week that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will resume shortly, “on the basis of an understanding that the establishment of a Palestinian state will be officially announced in two years … talks will initially focus on determining the permanent border between Israel and the West Bank”.

Fayyad has widely discussed building Palestinian institutions to convince the world that his population is ready for statehood. But there is absolutely no evidence that Israel will accept such a unilateral move. Furthermore, ongoing settlement building makes any viable state close to impossible.

But perhaps these practical obstacles are not so important, as Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab argues. “By offering a plan for a de facto Palestinian state, irrespective of the success or failure of any possible peace process, Fayyad has laid the groundwork. Some see his plan as little more than naive optimism and predict it will go the way of so many others. Others see in it a practical blueprint that will lay the administrative foundation for statehood.

“Regardless, for Palestinian political unilateralism to stand any chance of success, the ideological and physical division between Islamists and nationalists and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must first be bridged. Without unity, there will be little incentive for Israel or the international community to view Palestinian political unilateralism as a serious measure.”

But according to Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah, writing recently in the Jordan Times, Fayyad’s “vision” is an illusion which appeals only to those desperate to please the occupying power:

“What is really taking shape in the West Bank today is a police state, where all sources of opposition or resistance — real or suspected — to either the PA regime, or the Israeli occupation are being systematically repressed by US-funded and trained Palestinian ‘security forces’ in full coordination with Israel. Gaza remains under tight siege because of its refusal to submit to this regime…

“Many in the region and beyond hoped the Obama Administration would be a real honest broker, at last bringing American pressure to bear on Israel, so that Palestinians might be liberated. But instead, the new administration is acting as an efficient laundry service for Israeli ideas; first they become American ones, and then a Palestinian puppet is brought in to wear them.”

During my July visit to the West Bank and Gaza, I heard countless allegations of US-trained Fatah soldiers abusing and torturing opponents, including Hamas members. Washington — and Canberra — ignore these stories.

Although there is evidence to suggest that some Palestinians are supportive of the PA’s strategy — anything to make life under occupation more bearable — facts on the ground are moving in the opposite direction. These facts present some questions that Fayyad won’t be able to ignore. For example, even if his plan gets much further, how can an effective democracy be built under occupation? Why would the Israelis trust the Palestinians to exercise control over their lives? How keen are the Western-funded Palestinian elites to please their masters and whitewash the occupation? How meaningful is Fayyad’s talk of ending the occupation when he cannot even ensure the free the day-to-day movement of his own people?

Another interesting factor in the mix is the growing rumour that Fayyad is positioning himself to challenge Abbas in forthcoming elections — although he lacks a political base. He would probably garner Western support for such a move, but whether the Palestinians would reward a man who has made no progress in dismantling the occupation is questionable.

In support of the PA’s strategy under Abbas and Fayyad, some observers point to the fact that the Palestinian West Bank economy is growing, and there have been definite improvements to the lives of Palestinians on the West Bank. During my recent visit I noted fewer Israeli checkpoints and increased freedom of movement for Palestinians.

All of that might suggest to observers that the current PA strategy is correct. But while nobody should begrudge the improvement of Palestinian lives, without justice and viability, the leadership’s acceptance of the scraps of Israeli “generosity” will only lead to further strife. The plan is doomed to fail, as long as Palestinians remain one of the most aid-dependent people on the planet.

Gideon Levy told In These Times this month that the, “[Israeli] public has grown indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians under occupation” and the vast majority has no interest in knowing about IDF abuses in the occupied territories.

‘Moderate’ Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be popular with western leaders, but under his watch the gulf between rhetoric and reality is growing, writes Antony Loewenstein

The Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, was interviewed earlier this month on ABC Radio National’s Saturday Extra. Host Geraldine Doogue opened her conversation with him with the following words:

“I’d like to introduce you now to a man you may not have heard too much about in Australia, but he is really coming into his political prime, and earning himself considerable international respect, because his basic day job is super-tough…[He's] neither from the Fattah or Hamas parties, and he comes to this post via an unusual route, with an unusual suite of skills. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Texas; he’s worked for the World Bank and as a private banker; and some argue that even the Israelis are enchanted by him, and he certainly seems to be presiding over some much-wanted economic successes.”

Such effusive praise is typical of the Western media’s response to Fayyad. Newsweek recently profiled Fayyad but included a telling caveat: “Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s unorthodox approach is winning plaudits from the West. That could be his undoing”.

The fact that some people see Fayyad as a source of hope for the Middle East is itself a reflection of how jammed the situation really is. This week’s brief meeting in New York between Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas will only confirm to sceptical Palestinians that “engagement” with Israel leads to never-ending meetings and photo opportunities. Hamas makes this exact point and they’re right. Israel refuses to cease settlement building and Washington is apparently unwilling to enforce Obama’s desire for a “settlement freeze”. No movement on Middle East peace talks actually means an ever-expanding occupation. The Palestinians lose every time.

Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy has even issued a challenge to Israel to conduct a referendum on the occupation on the grounds that while “most of [the Israeli public] says it supports the two-state solution … at the same time it votes for right-wing, centrist or pseudo-leftist parties that have no intention whatsoever of ending the occupation.”

Indeed, the vast gulf between rhetoric and reality has never been greater. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to announce the expansion of illegal colonies in the West Bank, the international community appears impotent to stop it. A European diplomat, quoted in JTA in early September, said: “It’s difficult to understand what the Israelis want when they announce that kind of thing. But it shouldn’t derail the process”.

Into the midst of this deadlock, Fayyad has recently announced that he will declare a Palestinian state in 2011 regardless of political progress with Israel. Reflecting this, Palestinian and European Union sources told Haaretz last week that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will resume shortly, “on the basis of an understanding that the establishment of a Palestinian state will be officially announced in two years … talks will initially focus on determining the permanent border between Israel and the West Bank”.

Fayyad has widely discussed building Palestinian institutions to convince the world that his population is ready for statehood. But there is absolutely no evidence that Israel will accept such a unilateral move. Furthermore, ongoing settlement building makes any viable state close to impossible.

But perhaps these practical obstacles are not so important, as Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab argues. “By offering a plan for a de facto Palestinian state, irrespective of the success or failure of any possible peace process, Fayyad has laid the groundwork. Some see his plan as little more than naive optimism and predict it will go the way of so many others. Others see in it a practical blueprint that will lay the administrative foundation for statehood.

“Regardless, for Palestinian political unilateralism to stand any chance of success, the ideological and physical division between Islamists and nationalists and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must first be bridged. Without unity, there will be little incentive for Israel or the international community to view Palestinian political unilateralism as a serious measure.”

But according to Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah, writing recently in the Jordan Times, Fayyad’s “vision” is an illusion which appeals only to those desperate to please the occupying power:

“What is really taking shape in the West Bank today is a police state, where all sources of opposition or resistance — real or suspected — to either the PA regime, or the Israeli occupation are being systematically repressed by US-funded and trained Palestinian ‘security forces’ in full coordination with Israel. Gaza remains under tight siege because of its refusal to submit to this regime…

“Many in the region and beyond hoped the Obama Administration would be a real honest broker, at last bringing American pressure to bear on Israel, so that Palestinians might be liberated. But instead, the new administration is acting as an efficient laundry service for Israeli ideas; first they become American ones, and then a Palestinian puppet is brought in to wear them.”

During my July visit to the West Bank and Gaza, I heard countless allegations of US-trained Fatah soldiers abusing and torturing opponents, including Hamas members. Washington — and Canberra — ignore these stories.

Although there is evidence to suggest that some Palestinians are supportive of the PA’s strategy — anything to make life under occupation more bearable — facts on the ground are moving in the opposite direction. These facts present some questions that Fayyad won’t be able to ignore. For example, even if his plan gets much further, how can an effective democracy be built under occupation? Why would the Israelis trust the Palestinians to exercise control over their lives? How keen are the Western-funded Palestinian elites to please their masters and whitewash the occupation? How meaningful is Fayyad’s talk of ending the occupation when he cannot even ensure the free the day-to-day movement of his own people?

Another interesting factor in the mix is the growing rumour that Fayyad is positioning himself to challenge Abbas in forthcoming elections — although he lacks a political base. He would probably garner Western support for such a move, but whether the Palestinians would reward a man who has made no progress in dismantling the occupation is questionable.

In support of the PA’s strategy under Abbas and Fayyad, some observers point to the fact that the Palestinian West Bank economy is growing, and there have been definite improvements to the lives of Palestinians on the West Bank. During my recent visit I noted fewer Israeli checkpoints and increased freedom of movement for Palestinians.

All of that might suggest to observers that the current PA strategy is correct. But while nobody should begrudge the improvement of Palestinian lives, without justice and viability, the leadership’s acceptance of the scraps of Israeli “generosity” will only lead to further strife. The plan is doomed to fail, as long as Palestinians remain one of the most aid-dependent people on the planet.

Gideon Levy told In These Times this month that the, “[Israeli] public has grown indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians under occupation” and the vast majority has no interest in knowing about IDF abuses in the occupied territories.

Wishing these difficulties away will not suffice — and nor will hoping the Palestinians simply accept whatever Bantustan they are given by the international community.

Wishing these difficulties away will not suffice — and nor will hoping the Palestinians simply accept whatever Bantustan they are given by the international community.

Michael Shaik, from Australians for Palestine, writes in Murdoch’s Australian:

In 1973, Ariel Sharon announced his intention to make a “pastrami sandwich” of the Palestinians by building strips of settlements across the West Bank, “so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart”. Today, 40 per cent of the West Bank is under the control of the settlers as the pastrami slices thicken and Palestinian transport, agriculture and commerce are stifled by the web of Israeli-only settlement roads that link up the settlements.

While that strange constellation of Jewish irredentists, Christian fundamentalists, neoconservatives, Hamas hardliners, Iranian mullahs and advocates of global jihad will no doubt welcome the quiet death of the road map, it is unlikely any other party will benefit from a return to a peace process of empty gestures.

As the last prospects of a viable Palestinian state collapse, Israel is changing from a Jewish state into an Arab country ruled by a Jewish minority. Rather than marking the beginning of a new era, Obama’s Cairo address seems destined to be remembered as a footnote in the tragic history of US Middle East diplomacy.

Following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent foul speech on “Jerusalem Day” about Jews, Israel and the Holocaust – he’s been welcomed to New York this week with Iranian protests -  Juan Cole digs deeper into his words to reveal an even bleaker picture:

For him to suggest, as he does here, that anti-Semitism was justified by Jewish “indecent behavior,” is beyond despicable. He also appears to blame Jews for the Nazi crimes against them, saying that the Zionists spread around anti-Semitic books and films in Europe so as to make Jews hated and so as to cause them to be expelled to Palestine. These allegations go beyond simple anti-Zionism into a weird and creepy world of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

Elsewhere he says, “My dear ones, the pretext used to establish the Zionist regime was a lie and a corrupt act. It was a lie based on a fabricated claim that cannot be proven. The occupation of the Palestinian land had no connection with the issue of holocaust. The claim, the pretext, [and the directors [dastandarkaran] and the patrons [hamiyan]] are all fraudulent and corrupt. They are all historical criminals. They are responsible for plundering and colonizing the world for the past 500 years.”

I read the Persian phrase, which the government translators dropped, about dastandarkaran (masters, proprietors) and their protectors and patrons (hamiyan) to be a reference to Zionists and imperialists. He then says “all of them” (hamih-’i ishan) are responsible for colonizing and plundering the world for the past half-millennium. I’ve gone back and forth on this, since Ahmadinejad’s speaking style is syntactically sloppy and his referents are not always clear, but I am leaning to thinking that he sees a Jewish/ imperial partnership as having stretched into the distant past.

In other words, he is saying, all of modern history (possibly from the Portuguese conquest of Goa) and certainly the British conquests during WW I, the Nazi persecution of Jews, and last year’s American presidential race, has been the unfolding of a secret Jewish plot, wherein “Zionists” control everything that happens.

You wonder why he holds out any hope of Palestinians prevailing in the face of such a long-lived and all-powerful conspiracy! It is sort of like The Highlander meets the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

This man is most certainly not a friend of the Palestinians.

My following article appears in today’s Crikey:

After Tuesday night’s Sydney Ideas lecture by Saree Makdisi, professor of English Literature at the University of California and nephew of the late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said, chief executive of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, asked a question. He wanted to know why Makdisi had ignored the extreme Hamas charter, Palestinian rejectionism and constant Israeli peace offers since 1948. “You’ve only told one side of the story,” Alhadeff claimed.

Makdisi responded with passion, claiming that Alhadeff and the Zionist position he represented only saw in Israel and Palestine what they wanted to see. Alhadeff started his question by saying that, “we all believe the occupation should have ended yesterday”, and yet Makdisi countered that Israel’s supposedly serious peace offerings were bogus as long as the occupation of the West Bank deepened every day.

It was a point he made on ABC Radio’s The World Today last week. Equality, justice and peace can never be achieved when fundamentalist, Jewish colonialists continue to control vital West Bank territory.

About 200 people packed into Sydney University’s Seymour Centre on Tuesday night (disclosure: I introduced Makdisi) and the crowd was diverse. Although there were few Jewish attendees  — I knew maybe five  — there were countless Palestinians, Arabs and concerned citizens of various ages. His talk in Melbourne last week (covered in The Age), was equally popular, I’m told, people drawn to the growing global consensus that apartheid is occurring in the occupied territories with total Western support (the audio is here).

Makdisi spoke principally about Jerusalem’s proposed Museum of Tolerance, to be built on a sacred Muslim cemetery. He explained how the Zionist backers of the project appear oblivious or uncaring towards the sensitivities of the Palestinian population and want to create a space where Jewish “unity” is celebrated rather than real reconciliation with the Arab population.

Makdisi argued that the only way to fairly solve the Middle East crisis  — he had no faith in Barack Obama, despite having known him years ago in Chicago and saying he was a good politician  — was a one-state solution with equal rights for all its citizens. A democracy like any other Western state, such as America or Australia, that theoretically thrives on its multicultural mix, rather than Israel that wants ethnic and racial purity.

Makdisi’s Edward Said Memorial Lecture, given last weekend at the University of Adelaide, is a catalogue of life for Palestinians under occupation, a reality rarely told in the Western media. An extract:

“According to a report published in July 2007 by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA), almost 40 percent of the West Bank is now taken up by Israeli infrastructure (roads, colonies, army bases, etc) to which indigenous Palestinians are largely denied access. The pace of Jewish colonisation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — colonisation that has taken place on the illegally expropriated private property of Palestinian families or, equally illegally, on land that was declared state property by the Israeli army — has not significantly slackened for one moment in the past four decades, even though Israel’s colonial enterprise has been repeatedly condemned as a violation of international law by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council as well as the International Court of Justice in the Hague.”

Makdisi’s solution to the conflict is not to wait for the Obama administration to move into gear  — he told me that America had shown no indication of getting serious with the peace process  — but a global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign targeting complicit Israeli institutions. Such thoughts, gathering pace across the world, are making defenders of the occupation status quo here in Australia rightly uncomfortable.

I spoke to several people on Tuesday night who told me that such talks in Australia about occupation were happening with increasing frequency. “Twenty years ago.” one attendee told me, “you never heard about the Palestinians. Now you do, but they have no power.”

Antony Loewenstein is a journalist and author of My Israel Question.

I’m down in Melbourne for a few days to launch My Israel Question tonight and speak tomorrow at Trades Hall and a large pro-Palestine rally in the centre of the city.

So I opened the Age newspaper to find this embarrassingly parochial story on page one of the paper:

John Howard was the man of steel. Now Kevin Rudd, it seems, has been anointed the world’s nerd-in-chief.

Former US president Bill Clinton has heaped praise on the Australian Prime Minister’s grey matter in front of an audience of 400 celebrities and world leaders.

”In my opinion, he is one of the most well informed, well read, intelligent leaders in the world today,” Mr Clinton said.

Looking on were Hollywood stars including Demi Moore, Matt Damon and Ben Stiller, as well as East Timorese President Jose Ramos Horta, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

But Mr Clinton, who had breakfast with Mr Rudd earlier in the week, gave the impression that Our Kev was the smartest guy in the room.

Wow, Rudd is such an impressive man, is there anything he can’t do?

The fact that this is a serious story simply suggests how threatening the Palestinian narrative remains for the Jewish state:

The Education Ministry will be reexamining a new Hebrew-language history textbook published by the Zalman Shazar Center that was approved for 11th- and 12th-grade classes. The textbook gives expression to the Palestinian perspective on the Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic), which is the Palestinians’ term for what happened to them in the War of Independence.

The textbook, “Nationalism: Building a State in the Middle East,” was published several weeks ago. It contains a passage stating “the Palestinians and the Arab states contended that most of the [Palestinian] refugees were civilians who were attacked and expelled from their homes by the armed Jewish forces, which instituted a policy of ethnic cleansing, contrary to the proclamations of peace in the Declaration of Independence.”

The subject of the Palestinian refugee problem has appeared in the school history curriculum for years. In the new textbook, the chapter dealing with the issue begins with a set of “facts” on which there is almost no dispute: Many Palestinians left the country during the War of Independence, whether because they believed “they would return as victors with the invading [Arab] armies” or because of “the fear of the Israeli forces,” and “many others were expelled from their places of residence.”

The refugee problem, the chapter says, “became the focus of a number of political and historiographic [relating to the writing of history] controversies” on the causes for the flow of refugees, estimated at several hundred thousand people.

The book presents the Palestinian and the Jewish-Israeli points of view side by side. Immediately following the Palestinian narrative, the Zionist narrative states that “for years, the State of Israel has contended it called upon the Palestinians to stay, and they fled their villages and towns during the war because they were abandoned by their leadership, because of Arab propaganda about atrocities and due to the instructions of the invading [Arab] armies.”

…

A Jerusalem-area history teacher said that students cannot be taught the way the textbook presents the material, as they are unable to distinguish between Arab propaganda and objective analysis, adding that the “claims” of the State of Israel cannot be presented as having equal value as those of Arab propagandists. Similarly, the teacher said, Nazi propaganda could not be presented side by side with the Jewish view of the Holocaust. Another teacher from the center of the country, said, however, that “a substantial part of the study of history involves the expression of as many points of view as possible.”

Israel is a profoundly insecure country.

Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to Fox News:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would never make peace with Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza, a stand that could undermine peace negotiations in the region.

In an interview with FOX News, Netanyahu said Gaza can’t be part of a peace deal while Hamas is in control.

“We can work with the Palestinian Authority headed by Abbas,” he said, referring to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. “We cannot accept Hamas as a negotiating partner.”

“I categorically say you can’t make peace with somebody who wants to destroy you, and Hamas wants to destroy us,” he said. “What would we negotiate with them about? The method of our destruction?”

Gideon Levy in Haaretz on the insanity of this position:

Obama needs to turn things upside-down and break with convention. That’s why he was elected. Two decisive steps would change things completely: an American effort to introduce Hamas into the negotiations and pressure on Israel to end the matter of the occupation. Simplistic? Perhaps, but the complex and gradual solutions haven’t gotten us anywhere up to now. Like it or not, without Hamas peace is not possible. The fact that Obama has put his trust only in Abbas’ Fatah has guaranteed failure, which was foreseeable. History has taught us that you make peace with your worst enemy, not with those who are seen as collaborators by their own people.

Ambassador Edward S. Walker, Jr, former assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, former Ambassador to Israel, Egypt, and the U.A.E., and Deputy Permanent Representative of the U.S. to the U.N. with Ambassadorial Rank, writes about this week’s futile Obama/Netanyahu/Abbas meeting and ends with a question that nobody wants to seriously consider:

Perhaps President Obama will have to stop thinking about this problem in the short term and stop looking for a quick fix.  It seems clear that no progress is possible on the critical issues so long as the Israeli government continues in its current configuration.  And in all probability no progress can really be expected so long as the Palestinians are a hair’s breadth away from committing mutual suicide.  So perhaps the Palestinian Prime Minister Salem Fayyed has it right.  This may be the time for the Palestinians to get their act together and form a credible government in the service of the Palestinian people.  And it may be time for Israelis to consider their future and decide whether or not they want peace to be held hostage by a rigid minority of the settler movement.  Or we can just mark time until Palestinians living on land from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean outnumber their Jewish neighbors.  Then what?

Arianna Huffington lands in Israel and immediately pens a love letter to the wonderful state. Nauseating and utterly devoid of skepticism. What occupation? What Gaza war?

I arrived in Tel Aviv, at the Ben Gurian Airport, at 6:30 Sunday evening and went straight to the Yoezer Wine bar, a charming restaurant in Jaffa, housed in an old stone building that dates back to the Ottoman Empire.

I was there to have dinner with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his wife Nili, who were leaving at midnight for Washington for meetings at the White House, as well as prominent Israeli venture capitalist, Meir Barel, of Star Ventures, fellow Greek Sabby Mionis, and Avital Leibovich, the spokesperson for the Foreign Press Division of the Israeli military.

Barak is Israel’s most decorated soldier. A warrior turned politician, he is a former Prime Minister and Labor Party leader who was asked to join Netanyahu’s government. Their relationship dates back 25 years, to when Barak was a grad student at Stanford and Netanyahu was a grad student at MIT. Another bond between the two would-be rivals is the close friendship of Barak and Netanyahu’s brother Yonatan, a commando who was killed in the famed raid on Entebbe in Uganda.

During dinner, Barak’s security detail stood guard around the table, guns at the ready and on full display. One of the guards stood directly behind the Defense Minister. Even though he was stationary, his eyes — and, it seemed, his brain — were in constant motion. He was an adrenaline rush come to life. In comparison, the Secret Service detail that guards the U.S. president seems positively laid back.

During his time as Prime Minister, Barak ended Israel’s military occupation of southern Lebanon, and was part of the failed Camp David summit with Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat. Given this, I asked him to compare George W. Bush’s leadership to Obama’s when it comes to Israel. “I’m an ABB,” he said. “Anyone But Bush. Obama is investing a lot of his political capital in the peace process, and it’s important that we don’t waste this moment.”

On some days, such as today, I look at the Middle East “peace process” and wonder how any serious journalist can’t write about Israel and Palestine and not simply laugh (or cry). Talks, meeting, summits, statements of intent and yet the occupation only grows. A farce allowed to continue by either blind Zionists or bought Palestinians (and a biased media.)

The New York Times reported this week’s meeting between Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas with this inane headline, “In Mideast Peace Bid, Obama Pivots in His Demands“. Well, the Palestinians left empty-handed (not surprising, considering their “leader” is a corrupt and complicit man) and the Israelis are allowed to continue building illegal settlements.

Obama himself, speaking at the UN, issued more pretty sounding words with utterly no political clout behind them:

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God’s children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why – even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days – I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace.

Nice, but Israel is playing Washington for fools. Nothing on the ground in Palestine has really changed. The colonisation continues apace. Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery is disappointed that Obama hasn’t achieved more (er, anything). It’s a shame people like him are still foolishly hoping for a US President to fairly deal with the Middle East. It isn’t going to happen. Hence the importance of a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, a civil and non-violent way to effect change. And it’s growing in power.

But back to this week’s New York meeting (here’s a small selection of Jewish commentators on the event, mostly saying that Israel is the undoubted winner. No kidding.)

J Street, desperate to appear positive and pro-Obama, released a statement with Obama-style platitudes:

J Street welcomes today’s trilateral meeting between President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Abbas.

We applaud the serious commitment President Obama has demonstrated since the first day of his Presidency to personally engage in a sustained and active pursuit of a negotiated, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

With the continued wide gaps between the parties readily apparent, with the window of opportunity for a two-state solution rapidly closing, and with little political leadership coming from the parties or the region, the only hope for progress lies with strong, sustained U.S. leadership.

We urge the parties and the administration to use today’s meeting as a starting point to get to the negotiating table as quickly as possible with concrete plans for addressing final status issues.

The two-state solution and a comprehensive, regional peace agreement are still the only way to ensure Israel’s long-term security as a Jewish, democratic homeland and to advance U.S. interests in the region.

The status quo is unsustainable and the time has come to move beyond process and toward peace – and to address tough questions and make difficult choices. In short, it is time for real leadership.

J Street looks to President Obama to take the bold steps necessary to move toward the resolution of the conflict so needed by both peoples and in the interests of the United States and all the people of the region.

Sigh.

The clearest evidence possible that America wants to continue its unquestioning relationship with Israel is this news:

The Obama administration will not allow the Goldstone report recommendations on Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war to reach the International Criminal Court.

A top White House official told Jewish organizational leaders in an off-the-record phone call Wednesday that the U.S. strategy was to “quickly” bring the report — commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council and carried out by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone — to its “natural conclusion” within the Human Rights Council and not to allow it to go further, Jewish participants in the call told JTA.

The report said the U.N. fact-finding mission investigating Israel’s conduct during the January 2009 war found evidence of Israeli war crimes. Israel has denied the allegations and said the report’s mandate was biased — an opinion echoed by U.S. officials.

The Obama administration is ready to use the U.S. veto at the U.N. Security Council to deal with any other “difficulties” arising out of the report, the White House official said Wednesday. The administration also has made clear to the Palestinian Authority that Washington is not pleased with a P.A. petition to bring the report’s allegations against Israel to the International Criminal Court.

The official said the Obama administration’s view was that the report was flawed from its conception because the mandate presumed a priori that Israel had violated war crimes and that the mandate ignored Hamas’ role in prompting the war through its rocket fire into Israel.

War crimes committed by Israel? Never, says Washington, they’re our friends.

Chaim Gans, author of A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State, continues the grand Zionist tradition of endlessly debating the “rights” and wrongs of the occupation and the pain of the Right that believes God gave the land to the Jews. Such circular and futile discussions have been going on for decades and the occupation has only deepened.

Human rights abuses in Iran, especially since the disputed June election, are growing by the day. Here’s just one way that the internet is spreading the information to the world, away from government thugs:

Following controversial elections in Iran, Ibrahim Sharifi joined the popular street protests. After being tracked down by Iran’s security forces, he was abducted and beaten in jail. But the young man is now in hiding for something he did after his release from jail: bear witness to his rape by security officials. Last Sunday, the world heard Sharifi’s disturbing story of imprisonment and rape via his cell phone camera.

Soon after his initial release from jail, Sharifi contacted cleric Mehdi Karroubi, a presidential candidate who was investigating reports of a wave of prison rapes by interrogators. Sharifi, along with other victims, told his story to Karroubi, who included it in an official demand for a government investigation. While Iran’s Majlis (parliament) was running an investigation about the rape allegations, security agents took Sharifi off the street into a car and threatened to kill his family if he told anything to the Majlis

Sharifi immediately went into hiding. But when another state-appointed committee declared all rape allegations to be untrue and called for the arrest of those responsible for “tarnishing the image of the holy state”, he felt compelled to bear witness. He recorded his testimony by video on his camera phone and sent the file to a renowned Persian filmmaker in Holland, Reza Allamehzadeh. In the video, Sharifi describes the physical abuse he endured, including blacking out during his assault. “Don’t let the bastards touch any of us again,” he urges.

Allamehzadeh released the footage, along with his own commentary, in a video that has over 125,000 views on YouTube. Sharifi may be hiding from the Iranian government, but he used his cell phone to expose to the rest of the world the abuse inflicted upon him.

Despite the trauma, I’m inspired by these stories (many of which I gather in my book, The Blogging Revolution.)