The Way to J Street

Because of the way the system has been imposed, and for what seems like an eternity, we have been tied down to the same old tired and strung out "peace processes" that has many who are seeking a just solution to perhaps the biggest conflict in contemporary society today, left feeling jaded about the whole discord of Israelis and Palestinians. We have heard it from the most weary (by that I mean the passive normal citizen) that there is no peaceful solution to this friction and that the only way to ever get some rest is to nuke it or just kill off one group (mostly the belligerent Arabs who don't know their place in this world). I distinctly remember a co-worker of mine, when he caught a glimpse of the title of a book I was reading, called Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood (by Noam Chomsky), objected that there will never be any peace in that tumultuous region and that they have been fighting for centuries and they will continue that path until they all wind up killing each other (Note: he only caught the subtitle, not the header.). Of course not one to back down, I contended that that attitude was rather defeatist and also a little misguided since history is filled with conflagrations that is not solely within the Middle East and that he omitted the glaring fact that the Orient (in the region in question) has been under the aegis of one empire to another that egged on civil wars. The point was over his (non scholar) head as he attested that it is a lost cause and that we should not expend any more energy on a people that is only going to implode.

Is he right? As of this point in time, he is not but who knows what the future holds. But we are only able to shape what we see before us today and we have to try to avoid such cataclysms that has dire consequences for the entire world's population. While my co-worker can direct our attention to the back-and-forth bombings in Gaza as proof of this, he is only simplifying a narrative that is too complex to be fit into a sound byte or a two-minute news blurb on television. Right now, we barely have any coverage on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I barely even noticed anything on the Canadian news hub about an ex-President's visit with a leader of Hamas. Now it may not seem to be big news to Canadians but this is a major step towards a comprehensive dialogue that might bridge the gap between the occupier and the occupied. But how is my co-worker meant to demur on this latest act without even knowing that it occurred?

It comes as no surprise that this step by Jimmy Carter is being brandished a no-no by many who claim to be supportive of peace between the two parties in the conflict. As a matter of fact, Barack Obama lambasted President Carter for meeting with Khaled Meshaal, inculcating us that Hamas is "not a state" and that it is a "terrorist organisation". To double it up, Obama emphatically stated (yet again) that he would never meet with Hamas unless it recognises Israel, blah blah blah. The same old tired rhetoric that we have been imbibed with for decades now. Terrorists this, Israel's security that. Not a damned thing has changed (except for those pretty settlements in the West Bank), no matter how many times Obama stresses that he is for it.

So what of it? What are we to do now since this power disparity has been so entrenched that we have been unable to move the boot of Israel from the Palestinians' necks? The (true) left has been applying their voice but they are largely ignored because, as Norman Finkelstein calmly stated it (when Tony Judt labeled him as such), it is the "loonie left" that advocates the position that Israel should give up its territories and its annexations for the purpose of achieving peace and normalisation with its neighbours. And because the media has been couched with the bigwigs of philanthropy that finds their "donations" into the favoured candidates who confess to be "pro-Israel", we have been moved rightward and that the only effective opposition that they afford the time to is one that is "centrist" or even slightly right-of-centre. The right-wing has so demonised the left as being supporters of communism that the dissidence is largely deflected onto the alternative media. What counts for skeptical journalism these days? After all, we have had over three months after Annapolis and the West Bank is in a shambles (for the Palestinians); Hebron is under siege by more and more settlers; the wall has not moved an inch; the checkpoints remain intact and normal Palestinian life is rather abysmal compared to their Israeli counterparts IN THE WEST BANK. Mats Svensson describes the disconnect:

"Ma'ale Adumim [a settlement with 28 000 settlers], which previously did not exist in our modern history, is soon completed. People live there with access to water, swimming pools, olive groves outside the window, schools, clinics and perhaps most importantly--access to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv just 60 minutes away. Many live in Ma'ale Adumim and work in Tel Aviv. It is cheaper that way, because the land is free."

These illegal usurpers are living the high life on bulldozed Palestinian land and what is a pro-Israel supporter to do? Compare this leisure to the horror stories of Palestinian life where they are held at checkpoints for hours and hours and sometimes are not even let through. Is this the life that they have to look forward to? Where is the sense of outrage that this is no acceptable as applicable to human rights, something that we have been drunk on ever since the Tibetan outrage and the urge to boycott the Beijing Olympics? You would think that occupations would be the du jour of today but I guess if you're a Palestinian, you do not deserve the recognition that Tibetans are warranted.

As we talk and talk, Israel just continues to approve more housing, effectively shutting off any peace proposal for a two-state solution. Many will say that this was the point all along and who can say that they are wrong here? Having been an espoused anti-Zionist, it has always been affirmed within me that Israel's leaders are not content with what they have, hence the refusal for a constitution or even final borders, and are willing to sacrifice anything to get what they want (as much land as possible). This only evokes David Ben-Gurion's words back when European Jews were being slaughtered at a massive scale by the rise of the Nazi party:

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second - because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people." [One Palestine, Complete pg 394]

That was the price they were willing to pay for their "Jewish homeland"; they were willing to tolerate the most odious of statesmen just to achieve their goal. It is no different today: why we have an ex-Prime Minister and current leader of the Likud party boasting that Israel has benefited greatly from the 9/11 attacks. This puts the Christopher Ketcham story into greater perspective.

Again, where is the outrage? Where is the anger? Or more importantly, where is the coverage? (Incidentally, it cannot be ignored that a PNAC paper, called the "Clean Break" Plan, authored by the biggest neoconservatives we have grown to know and love was written for Netanyahu when he was in office.)

Well some people have had enough of the monopoly that the likes of AIPAC have had over foreign policy (and if you doubt that just glimpse at Walt and Mearsheimer's best-seller). The campaign of smears and kowtowing and bribery, along with the backing of every failed initiative that only prolongs the agony for Israel's citizens and its neighbours, is getting too tiresome and it is getting old. The lynching of Carter has not worked and his book is still regarded very highly. Walt and Mearsheimer have been blacklisted but they still receive an audience and the apartheid analogy is gaining credence and even getting into a tuffle at the University of Toronto (over freedom of speech and so forth). Zionism, as has been revealed, is on the wane and Israel is of less importance to the younger Jews in the Diaspora and some do see their hardline stance in the negative.

Capitalising on this is the new lobby, named J Street. Now this new organisation is getting coverage; from Mother Jones, to the Washington Post, to Jim Lobe at IPS, and its making headway in the blogosphere, mainly from the Jewish circles such as Philip Weiss, Richard Silverstein, Dan Fleshler and of course the co-founder of the group Daniel Levy. This is exciting but you do have to try to reserve yourself. This new group aims to be a counterpoint to the disastrous legacy that has conflated Jewish into one pool that to be pro-Israel is to be supportive of every aggressive action that testifies to Israel's staunch stance on democracy. Not only that, it also will do what other liberal Jewish groups have been unable to do and that is back candidates in office or attempt to delegitamise a candidate that is seen as having a deleterious record on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Here is J Street:

"Neoconservative, right-wing Jewish leaders and radical Christian Zionists have turned their definition of “pro-Israel” into a driving force in the American political process... These voices do not…represent the mainstream of American Jews or the broader community that cares about Israel or American interests in the Middle East. Their efforts have skewed American policy, undermined Israeli and American interests, and constrained the domestic political and public debate about American foreign policy.

It is time for the mainstream of Americans–Jews and others–to establish a bold, political voice that advocates for the best interests of the U.S. and Israel, including a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps, and for American policy that will lead to real security for Israelis, Americans and the entire Middle East."

Is there a call for rejoice? I would call for one. It is well past time that another group would rise up and challenge the narrative here. J Street may be just the group to do that and you would have to agree that this is probably the best timing possible. The AIPAC hold is getting shaky and J Street might just be able to swoop where AIPAC is weakening. In addition, AIPAC has made plenty of fodder in past campaigns and J Street has a member by the name of Howard Dean, who has felt the wrath of AIPAC when he called for a more "balanced" approach to the I-P conflict which got him in the doghouse. Others who are tired of AIPAC's hegemony might lean towards J Street and take on the power of the lobby. In fact, the members are rather presitigous:
<DIV>
"There are of course leaders of the main American Jewish peace groups. There are rabbis and academics. But most important there are heavy hitter political donors (Alan Solomont), policy wonks (Rob Malley), U.S. ambassadors to Israel (Samuel Lewis), high level political operatives (Eli Pariser of Moveon), Hollywood liberals (Robert Greenwald), business leaders, George Soros’ top aide (Morton Halperin), and even a former Republican senator (Lincoln Chafee) and former Congressman (Tom Downey). The major political donors and business leaders are critical to provide the funding necessary to have an impact on political campaigns." [Quoted from Richard Silverstein's blog]

The other founding member Jeremy Ben-Ami stated that

"American voices... from the far Right... have claimed that the only way to be pro-Israel is to support military responses to political problems, to refuse to engage one's adversaries in dialogue and to put off the day of reckoning when hard compromises will be required to achieve a peaceful and secure future for Israel and the entire Middle East.

These are not the kind of smart, tough views that serve the long-term interests of the state of Israel, of the United States – or frankly, the American Jewish community.

Voices of reason need to reclaim what it means to be pro-Israel and to establish in American political discourse that Israel's core security interest is to achieve a negotiated two-state solution and to define once and for all permanent, internationally recognized borders."

In the end it really is a matter of who can best fit the pro-Israel mark. Is it going to be the doves or the hawks? As of today, we are seeing each Presidential candidate (and primary candidate) effectively out-hawking each other on the Israel question in order to fit the "pro-Israel" description. Gershom Gorenberg analysed this back in January:

"Being pro-Israel does not require backing the most bellicose possible Israeli position, anymore than being "pro-American" requires backing the war in Iraq.

To be pro-Israel certainly doesn't mean basing foreign policy on the alleged conflict of civilizations; the whole West locked in combat with the Islamic world.

Being pro-Israel certainly doesn't mean standing in the way of peace negotiations with Syria... support for Israel does not mean support for West Bank settlement, for the Whole Land of Israel, for endless occupation. The sane, mainstream Zionist vision was and is of a democratic state with a Jewish majority, with full rights for all citizens, a country living at peace with its neighbors. (That's what the country's declaration of independence says.) Rule over the disenfranchised Palestinians of the West Bank undermines democracy. Every additional settler makes withdrawal more difficult." {Emphasis mine]

Those who see that there is a price to pay for Israel's bellicose rule of Palestinians are trying to take back the reigns and make those who really support a Jewish state to take a step back and have a long hard look at where all of this is headed. Ehud Olmert famously said that unless there is a two-state solution that the Jewish state is in danger. Apparently others who do want Israel to continue to exist see it this way too because the longer we accept Israel's accelerating expropriation, the closer we get to facing a one-state battle (which I don't mind at all but could spark alarms for Zionists and post-Zionists out there).

The most common analogy I have encountered is the "drunk driver" analogy: you do not let friends drive drunk, so you cannot let Israel do something harmful that might end up killing not only those around it, but also itself. You do not urge them on or give them the keys. This is how many Jewish liberals are depicting this fight. AIPAC and other Christian Zionists are fueling the fire that is only making things worse for the world (remember that all roads lead to Jerusalem, which is occupied). J Street is hoping to be that guidance that would take the keys away from Israel and start telling them that this is not the way to get home. What is J Street's position?

"J Street calls for territorial compromises with the Palestinians based largely on the 1967 borders with reciprocal land swaps and the division of Jerusalem. The group also favors strong U.S. support for Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations and direct, high-level U.S. talks with Iran to address all issues of mutual concern, including ending Iranian opposition to Arab-Israeli peace efforts and its support for armed anti-Israel groups in Palestine and Lebanon."

Even though J Street is not going to be the saviour, it can be a major cog in the machine that ends up driving Israel back behind the Green Line. It is possible to apply pressure to Israel and see rewards. Eisenhower was successful and even President Carter was able to sign a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt (who both ironically starve the Gazans). Israel's elite still does not want a repeat of those two episodes but many in the US (and in Israel) are starting to see that the current policy is bankrupt and it is a failure, so it's time to start something new (or start actually listening to the Palestinians).

I wholly support this initiave and I urge others to back it. Support it, send out the word, email others about it and even donate. You do not have to be Jewish to do so despite the fact that it is a Jewish group. It is they who have so much at stake at losing support for Israel's security and peace. Although I am a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and am rather ambivalent about the whole project considering it is a lobby that is meant to strengthen ties to Israel (yet again), it is also one lobby that is openly stating the word "occupation" and (genuine) support for a Palestinian state. Daniel Levy is no slouch and he honest about his intentions of a two-state solution. And with all the support from so many Jewish liberals, it is tough not to support the cause.

My only hope is that the Palestinian voice is not lost in all of this. But J Street seems to be the only major campaigner who has a strong enough voice to voice it for them in the forum of the US.

They kill babies, don't they

Originally I was going to write about the latest from Obamarama, with quite enlightening facts peeping through about the latest "new hope" of America's politics. But not to unjustly deflect his noteworthy progress aside, I was more emotive ie disgusted, about the latest string of killings in the Gaza Strip, all thanks to our friendly neighbourhood occupier, Israel. I do not think it is unfair that the Obama post was put on the shelf, and in hindsight it is perhaps better off that I refrain from the hysteria that is engulfing Barack. His exploits has been well documented by the blogosphere, all by better and more experienced analysts than myself. So I would just be a small fish in a really big pond, and who needs to be superfluous when it comes to Israel-Palestine.

All Obama aside, Gaza has been raging with its residents screaming. Israel refuses to ease on the blockades, despite the EU and the UN all rightfully reprobating Israel for its misguided policy of "collective punishment". Upon this writing, Israel is continually warning (threatening) of a full-scale invasion of Gaza, letting everyone know that what has happened recently in Gaza is just a precursor of more pain and suffering to come. In fact, it was one particularly event that immediately gained my attention, and should also make the rest of the world balk at the "benevolence" of "the only democracy in the Middle East": a six-month old baby falling victim by Israel's bombs. His name was Mohammed Al-Boraiy.



This is earth shattering news, or it should be. I do not doubt that it will be lost in the midst of other spectacular deaths that too frequent the Palestinians. It is true that there was a casualty in Sderot from a Qassam attack, and this will prove very useful for the two Ehuds in the Knesset: it gives more justification for the kind of acts that we see too plainly, like the one above. Sderot is just the perfect pretext for more death and destruction to be inflicted on Hamas and the Gaza Strip. It matters not to the West that some of Hamas' members were killed previously before the Sderot death: what matters is that an Israeli died, and some Palestinians have to pay for their death, and with record numbers to boot. Poor tiny Mohammed, his life taken away, and he didn't even get a chance to utter his first word. A scant search for an Israeli comment on Mohammed goes unrewarded: the only one I found was a "no comment" and the usual reply that it was in retaliation for Qassams. What could they say about that? What could the media say about it? No CNN google hit, no Fox News google hit, no New York Times article, no Washington Post. Where's Thomas Friedman and his intellectual insight now?

Unfortunately, Mohammed was not the only tragedy in the last few days coming out of the Gaza Strip. Among the numbers were four children, and some reports naming a fifth, "killed while they played football".

"While the Israeli military said it had been targeting militants and rocket-launching squads, the officials said the boys were playing football close to their homes in Jabalya, northern Gaza."

Israel was not content there: they pummelled the home of Ismael Haniyeh, and caused more destruction at a nearby pharmacy, "a disabled centre catering for 400 chronically ill patients". This occupation was already ugly; it has just reared its ugly head yet again. What was Rice's response? "Hamas" is to blame for this purgatory.

More and more pictures, footage and articles appear that reveal that the occupation is not something that can be prettified. Jonathan Cook reported not only the lack of rights for Israeli Arabs, but also on the revelation that the killer of Aseel Asleh will not be punished close to eight years later. Still no justice for the Palestinians. Secondly, the reports that the behaviour of the IDF is purile, exposing themselves to Palestinian shepherds as they expel them from their land. And Hebron has been a haven of incidents:

"Shooting Palestinian bystanders; illegally commandeering cars and going on joyrides; torturing a youth by pressing a heater to his face and beating cuffed prisoners on their way to custody. These are only some of the reported cases of abuse for which Israel Defense Forces soldiers serving in the West Bank are currently on trial."

The article has some hideous testimonies:

"Last July, soldiers from the brigade commandeered a local taxi...The driver, Mohammed Issa Mahrazeh, was also removed, tied up and blindfolded and returned to the vehicle, where he was held for the duration of the incident. He sustained bruises...

According to Israel Radio, IDF soldiers used the cameras on their mobile phones to record themselves abusing detained Palestinians. Some of the soldiers allegedly beat the detainees while one of the soldiers is accused of exposing himself...

"We'd go on a patrol," one soldier told Channel 2 [television]. "If even one kid looked at us the wrong way, he'd be slapped. Rocks were thrown at us during one patrol, and we caught one of the kids who knew the perpetrators. We beat the crap out of him until he told us who did it." The soldier said that he and other soldiers tracked down a boy said to be involved, aged 14, and placed the tips of their rifles in his mouth. "We said, 'You want to die? Just say when and where,'" the soldier recalled...

[S]oldiers at roadblocks choked 10-year-old Palestinians with their bare hands until the children passed out."

Why there has been another report in Hebron of IDF soldiers beating a Palestinian and forcing him to dance naked. This is all too indicative of the moral decay that is happening within the IDF ranks as well as the Israeli Jewish mentality. The sheer humiliation that is being inflicted upon the Palestinians is sick pleasure for the IDF, high on the euphoria of their superiority, drunk with power, and now subject to capriciousness and whimsy as sick as their mind can take them. See what they can do to a pathetic Palestinian: reduce him to an animal, cage them in, brand them with ID cards, burn their olive trees, bulldoze their home, split their land, make him dance naked. We can even bomb their children and get away with it. This is what Palestinians see when they talk of the "only democracy in the Middle East". Gaza is a living experiment, and the prison is threatening to break out in a violent rage.

In fact, there's been a slippage of sorts, as Israel's Deputy Israeli Defense Minister Matan Vilnai reportedly called for a "bigger Holocaust" on the Gaza Strip. Ali Abunimah recalled that Vilnai used the Hebrew term "shoah" which is what the Jews use to refer to the Nazi Holocaust. Now Israel's officials are in deep damage control as they want to distance themselves from Vilnai's Freudian slip or attempt to downplay its intention that Vilnai only exclaimed for it to be a "disaster or a catastrophe". Now even Israel's leaders are invoking themselves as Nazis as they undertake a search and destroy mission in the Gaza Strip.

Further review of Abunimah's article only iterates that the call for the culling or removal of Palestinians is not something new.

"On 28 February, Vilnai's colleagues added their own inflammatory statements. Cabinet minister Meir Sheetrit stated that Israel should "hit everything that moves" in Gaza "with weapons and ammunition," adding, "I don't think we have to show pity for anyone who wants to kill us."

This is what we're growing accustomed to. Israeli Chief Rabbi Metgzer advocates a Palestinian state in the Sinai where "the plan would be to "take all the poor people from Gaza to move them to a wonderful new modern country with trains buses cars, like in Arizona - we are now in a generation where you can take a desert and build a city." Unfortunately we're not reciting any silly fantasies here: as Abunimah has alerted, the call for Palestinian displacement is quite normal among Rabbis.

Vilnai's slip-up is not really that big of a deal when we're dealing with the Palestinians. It is just another in the archives of Israel's intention to dehumanise their enemies and reduce them to rubble. We're going to get more hard words from each leader and Mohammed's death is going to be used to further fan the flames of aggression, just like the infamous bombing at a Gaza beach during Operation Summer Rain back in 2006. It is no accident though that we have forgotten about that incident, just like further down the road many will forget about what happened to Mohammed. The violence is just too much and we're inured to it. "Shit happens" during war: I find it hard to believe that Mohammed's parents will take solace in that reasoning.

Although the call for a "new Holocaust" has not balked many as of yet, it is in glaring constrant with the current polling statistics that has Israelis wanting a dialogue with Hamas: a gesture that was advocated here over and over. Not to toot my own horn but it was foreseen that the only way for the Qassams to really be stopped is to negotiate with Hamas, give them legitimacy and let them have the power over who to police the rocket fire. Just upon finishing Abunimah's book One Country: A Bold Proposal To End the Israeli-Palestininan Impasse, where he responds to a critic of his against a one-state solution he writes

"Give people rights and conflict diminshes...

When people's rights are recognized, it is possible to stop seeing them as terrorists and murderers and start seeing them as national assets and fellow citizens." [pg 174]

Just a small gesture to talk to Hamas will go a long way as it will give Hamas a reason to believe that Israel sees them as something significant, or of importance, or even of equal margin as Israel. With some trust, maybe the distance between enemies will be reduced. They don't have to be best friends: Egypt and Jordan both have peace deals with Israel and they don't recognise the Jewish state. They have "normalisation": why can't this be the same model for Hamas?

To be accurate, 64 % want Israel to talk with Hamas about a ceasefire and the release of Shalit (remember him?). That is a great margin and one that is gaining "public traction". More revealing is the fact that the Likud (48 %), Kadima (55 %) and Labour (72 %) are all a majority being in favour for a Hamas negotiation. Why then, does not Olmert put his guns down and talk to Hamas? His public wants him to, and even his coalition are in favour of it (except Barak of course)? Is this going to be another case of the population showing more common sense than its government? I believe it is more evidence that it is the public who truly feels the rockets being launched and its ramifications as Israel's officials sit in their safe offices and put more Sderot residents in harm's way just to make a point of not "talking to our enemy who wishes us dead". They're not doing that good of a job if that is their intention as Israel is leading the way by far on the dead campaign. Or is this the way for a "new Holocaust"?

The moral bankruptcy of the occupation is turning for the worse. It could be these unenlightening facts that is making young Jews in America turn away from the "pro-Likud" line that Obama rightfully rues as the way toward mutual destruction. And it is a possibility that that is what they see in Obama when they talk of "change": it is a very new development when a Presidential candidate talks so clearly about the Israel issue in America. While Clinton and McCain both aim to be more hawkish on Israel's front, Obama is making us breathe a fresher air when he reminds Israel that

"there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time."

Obama is opening up the debate even more, and it is more than welcome. Being too precocious when it comes to Israel is a big mistake especially when the consequences are so dire. We have children dying here so whenever Obama puts Israel in its place, it is more than backed up by circumstantial evidence when Mohammed is recalled. And Obama is right when he says that a "pro-Likud" thinking is not necessarily what most American Jews want. Here's Glenn Greenwald's account:

"With regard to virtually every issue, the right-wing American Jewish factions which act as arbiters for what views are "pro-Israel" and what views signify "anti-Israeli" animus or even anti-Semitism actually represent a minority -- often a small minority -- of Jews generally, and their views are sometimes even rejected by a majority of Israelis."

And it's Israelis again who are embarrassing Americans and Israel's government yet again. Debates are fierce in Israel; in the US the only debate is whether your criticism is anti-Semitic or not and that does a great disservice for not only Israelis who desire peace and normalisation in the Middle East, but those who truly see themselves as a great ally to Israel. Right now, the calling for a "new Holocaust" is not one that will end good, and for the Palestinians, it could be close to extinction.

Maybe it is a little too late to engage Hamas now when another Palestinian toddler is slain. As I was typing this, the report came in that there were more casualties inflicted, and this time a 13 month old baby was killed. That's two babies in the span of two days.

"The bloodletting began before midnight Friday in the northern town of Beit Hanoun, where a 13-month-old girl, Malak Karfaneh, was killed by shrapnel."

Sadly the report does indicate that it was the Qassam firers who were responsible as their launch fell short and landed in the area of the baby's house. Now this cycle of violence is really on the tipping point. Maybe this may make Hamas rethink their position too but I somehow doubt it. Hamas is not as guilty as Israel but their insistence to retaliate is not helping matters anymore. It's true that they have to show Israel that there is a price to occupy but now we're stuck in a turmoil and little children are being killed. "In all, more than 70 Palestinians, including around 40 civilians, have been killed since fighting flared on Wednesday." That's a tragedy right now.

Condoleezza Rice is on her way back to the Middle East for "conflict resolution" but she still laments Hamas over all of this. The polls say talk to Hamas and Rice just continually blames them. This is not the way to go. Hamas were voted in for a reason. Mark Perry has been quoted that "Hamas is moderate" as well as Tony Karon. NOT to engage with him is a policy that will lead to nowhere but more Qassam rockets. As Sderot hears more alarms, Gaza ends up burning. And Olmert is not phased by any of this.

It might be safe to say that Annapolis is effectively over. Abbas is unable to do anything to appease the situation, even as the West attempts to bolster his image as the sole provider for the Palestinians. Hamas is resisting but it seems that their campaign is falling short as the world calls for them to be implemented. Annapolis could have been a guide to a better talk and we know that it could have been better than what we see happening in Gaza, but instead we were still stuck with the "ideological" battle over "good vs evil" that Daniel Levy warned us about. Back in November, Levy said if Bush and Olmert are intent on upholding the fact that Hamas is not someone to talk to then Annapolis is over and done with before it begins. Look where we are now: can you say that Levy was wrong?

What's more sickening to think of is that neither side seems willing to go back. Olmert wants to make Gazans pay. Hamas wants to show it can still be effective in taking some chunk out of Israel. The occupation just gets uglier by the day as the West Bank is carved up and East Jerusalem is severed from Palestinian life. The sole light right now is Obama, as hopes could be pinned on him on turning back this path toward a "new Holocaust". The bad news is that Obama can only be sworn in in 2009, and even if he does win, there really is no indication that he can take on a spineless Congress whose pockets are stuffed with AIPAC money. But just as Israeli officials are in damage control over Vilnai's slip, the Jewish quarter are also in major damage control over Obama's ascendence into the prime candidate for the Democratic party. Their methods are well-known but it only seems to give more steam to the Obama train.

Now I am not ready to endorse the man but he seems quite the reasonable option. He is talking a good talk (lately) and he does have Robert Malley as an advisor. Maybe there might be a Democrat whom we could vote for. It is still premature but Obama's latest exploits have made me warm up to him. And with recent events we can only hope for more of Obama's sternness in front of Israel's crowd.

Note: I had this written out yesternight but lost the heart of it due to a terrible computer malfunction. Vilnai's comments should not be easily forgotten, as it evokes the Nazis but only this time, it is Israel that is being compared to them (although some scholars have done so previously). Vilnai's quote reminds me of a statement that I found on Palestine Remembered:

"Through their own words do they damn themselves."

The Zionists have been on record through diaries and memoirs stating their intention for the removal of Palestinians, the existence of Palestinians and their plans to provoke response against Arab states in order for more war to gain territory or recognition that Israel is under constant attack. This is just another quote in a big archive dating back to Herzl upon the birth of Zionism. Upon further understanding of what Zionism really meant for the Palestinians, it is painstakingly clear that what drives the Zionists today is the same thing that drove the Stern Gang, the Irgun and the Haganah back in the 40s: the realisation of the total Jewish majority in historic Palestine. When given this information, the conflict is given a deeper meaning than just politics over rights and terrorism and "peace processes". There is internal debate over whether to give up the occupied territories, but not many question the need for a Jewish state that champions Jews over Palestinians. Vilnai only went a step further that most will not say in public but think in private.

Now I do feel quite remorseful thanks to the latest numbers. But what's more telling is there really is no end in sight now. I doubt the offer of a ceasefire will be on the table for much longer. Hamas is being arrested in the West Bank and Israel wants to continue with their failed policy of liquidation.

And it could not be any more logical: the open arms of Osama Bin Laden and co will be welcoming such Israeli bombing. The ignorance of this is too telling as Iraq provides the perfect lesson that no one is learning from. Here's the thing: more deaths will only mean more martyrs. Mohammed will be lifted to this profile I'm sure of it.

It is the same case for Israel: another death in Sderot only means that Hamas is not really sincere with their gesture of a ceasefire. But Israel has the means to put an end to this: Gaza is still being controlled fully by Israel (along with Egypt, the EU and the US). The easement of the sanctions can slow down Qassams. A bilateral talk with Hamas would show that you are serious about Hamas' concern and they would match that with an offer that would deal with Israel's concern about security. Hamas oversaw a unilateral ceasefire for a year. It can be done if Israel wants to.

I do not want more people to die but Hamas needs something to cling to or else other factions will take the lead in the resistance front and by the looks of how things are turning out, it is those peripheral groups that are being proven right: there's no legal way of dealing with Israel when it comes to Palestinian concern. Fatah was neutered, going from a large resistance movement with arms, turning into a hapless party with no power and full of corrupt officials. Hamas condemned the PLO of being just another tool of the occupation: now they are part of it. What's Hamas to do now when they played with the cards that the occupier gave them and they still come out with a losing hand? Islamic Jihad's contention that Israel has NO intention of ever conceding anything to Palestinians unless you threaten them with an armed struggle is looking more alluring to estranged Gaza youth who get killed while they play football. Not only that, they lose limbs, get beaten up, see their relatives shot at, and have their freedom of movement taken away. This is not a way to make friendly neighbours.

We are no closer to a mediation. Ironically, we're closer to "new Holocaust". Can we invoke those two words "never again"?