Abir Dandis, the mother of the two girls who were murdered in the Negev town of Al-Fura’a last week, couldn't find a police officer to listen to her warnings, neither in Arad nor in Ma’ale Adumim. Both police stations operate in areas where Israel wants to gather the Bedouin into permanent communities, against their will, in order to clear more land for Jewish communities. The dismissive treatment Dandis received shows how the Bedouin are considered simply to be lawbreakers by their very nature. But as a resident of the West Bank asking for help for her daughters, whose father was Israeli, Dandis faced the legal-bureaucratic maze created by the Oslo Accords.

The Palestinian police is not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians. It must hand suspects over to the Israel Police. The Palestinian police complain that in cases of Israelis suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian residents, the Israel Police tend not to investigate or prosecute them.

In addition, the town of Al-Azaria, where Dandis lives, is in Area B, under Palestinian civilian authority and Israeli security authority. According to the testimony of Palestinian residents, neither the IDF nor the Israel Police has any interest in internal Palestinian crime even though they have both the authority and the obligation to act in Area B.

The Palestinian police are limited in what it can do in Area B. Bringing in reinforcements or carrying weapons in emergency situations requires coordination with, and obtaining permission from, the IDF. If Dandis fears that the man who murdered her daughters is going to attack her as well, she has plenty of reason to fear that she will not receive appropriate, immediate police protection from either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

Dandis told Jack Khoury of Haaretz that the Ma’ale Adumim police referred her to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination and Liaison Committee. Theoretically, this committee (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry) is the logical place to go for such matters. Its parallel agency in Israel is the Civilian Liaison Committee (which is part of the Coordination and Liaison Administration - a part of the Civil Administration under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories).

In their meetings, they are supposed to discuss matters such as settlers’ complaints about the high volume of the loudspeakers at mosques or Palestinians’ complaints about attacks by settlers. But the Palestinians see the Liaison Committee as a place to submit requests for permission to travel to Israel, and get the impression that its clerks do not have much power when faced with their Israeli counterparts. In any case, the coordination process is cumbersome and long.

The Palestinian police has a family welfare unit, and activists in Palestinian women’s organizations say that in recent years, its performance has improved. But, as stated, it has no authority over Israeli civilians and residents. Several non-governmental women’s groups also operate in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and women in similar situations approach them for help. The manager of one such organization told Haaretz that Dandis also fell victim to this confusing duplication of procedures and laws. Had Dandis approached her, she said, she would have referred her to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which has expertise in navigating Israel’s laws and authorities.

John Kerry revealed his long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East on Sunday, hinging on a $4bn (£2.6bn) investment in the Palestinian private sector.

The US secretary of state, speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea, told an audience including Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that an independent Palestinian economy is essential to achieving a sustainable peace.

Speaking under the conference banner "Breaking the Impasse", Kerry announced a plan that he promised would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo accords, more than 20 years ago.

Tony Blair is to lead a group of private sector leaders in devising a plan to release the Palestinian economy from its dependence on international donors. The initial findings of Blair's taskforce, Kerry boasted, were "stunning", predicting a 50% increase in Palestinian GDP over three years, a cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates and almost double the Palestinian median wage. Currently, 40% of the Palestinian economy is supplied by donor aid.

Kerry assured Abbas that the economic plan was not a substitute for a political solution, which remains the US's "top priority".

Peres, who had taken the stage just minutes before, also issued a personal plea to his Palestinian counterpart to return to the negotiations.

"Let me say to my dear friend President Abbas," Peres said, "Should we really dance around the table? Lets sit together. You'll be surprised how much can be achieved in open, direct and organised meetings."

Thick locks hug the front gates of shuttered shops, now covered in graffiti and dust from lack of use. Only a handful of customers pass along the dimly lit road, sometimes stopping to check the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, or ordering meat in near-empty butcher shops.

“All the shops are closed. I’m the only one open. This used to be the best place,” said 64-year-old Mustafa Sunocret, selling vegetables out of a small storefront in the marketplace near his family’s home in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Amidst the brightly coloured scarves, clothes and carpets, ceramic pottery and religious souvenirs filling the shops of Jerusalem’s historic Old City, Palestinian merchants are struggling to keep their businesses alive.

Faced with worsening health problems, Sunocret told IPS that he cannot work outside of the Old City, even as the cost of maintaining his shop, with high electricity, water and municipal tax bills to pay, weighs on him.

“I only have this shop,” he said. “There is no other work. I’m tired.”

Abed Ajloni, the owner of an antiques shop in the Old City, owes the Jerusalem municipality 250,000 Israeli shekels (68,300 U.S. dollars) in taxes. He told IPS that almost every day, the city’s tax collectors come into the Old City, accompanied by Israeli police and soldiers, to pressure people there to pay.

“It feels like they’re coming again to occupy the city, with the soldiers and police,” Ajloni, who has owned the same shop for 35 years, told IPS. “But where can I go? What can I do? All my life I was in this place.”

He added, “Does Jerusalem belong to us, or to someone else? Who’s responsible for Jerusalem? Who?”

Illegal annexation

Israel occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in 1967. In July 1980, it passed a law stating that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. But Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and subsequent application of Israeli laws over the entire city remain unrecognised by the international community.

Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory – along with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights – and Palestinian residents of the city are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Jerusalem has historically been the economic, political and cultural centre of life for the entire Palestinian population. But after decades languishing under destructive Israeli policies meant to isolate the city from the rest of the Occupied Territories and a lack of municipal services and investment, East Jerusalem has slipped into a state of poverty and neglect.

“After some 45 years of occupation, Arab Jerusalemites suffer from political and cultural schizophrenia, simultaneously connected with and isolated from their two hinterlands: Ramallah and the West Bank to their east, West Jerusalem and Israel to the west,” the International Crisis Group recently wrote.

Israeli restrictions on planning and building, home demolitions, lack of investment in education and jobs, construction of an eight-foot-high separation barrier between and around Palestinian neighbourhoods and the creation of a permit system to enter Jerusalem have all contributed to the city’s isolation.

Formal Palestinian political groups have also been banned from the city, and between 2001-2009, Israel closed an estimated 26 organisations, including the former Palestinian Liberation Organisation headquarters in Jerusalem, the Orient House and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce.

Extreme poverty

Israel’s policies have also led to higher prices for basic goods and services and forced many Palestinian business owners to close shop and move to Ramallah or other Palestinian neighbourhoods on the other side of the wall. Many Palestinian Jerusalemites also prefer to do their shopping in the West Bank, or in West Jerusalem, where prices are lower.

While Palestinians constitute 39 percent of the city’s population today, almost 80 percent of East Jerusalem residents, including 85 percent of children, live below the poverty line.

“How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t control your resources? How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t have any control of your borders?” said Zakaria Odeh, director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, of “this kind of fragmentation, checkpoints, closure”.

“Without freedom of movement of goods and human beings, how could you develop an economy?” he asked.

“You can’t talk about independent economy in Jerusalem or the West Bank or in all of Palestine without a political solution. We don’t have a Palestinian economy; we have economic activities. That’s all we have,” Odeh told IPS.

Israel’s separation barrier alone, according to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), has caused a direct loss of over one billion dollars to Palestinians in Jerusalem, and continues to incur 200 million dollars per year in lost opportunities.

Israel’s severing and control over the Jerusalem-Jericho road – the historical trade route that connected Jerusalem to the rest of the West Bank and Middle East – has also contributed to the city’s economic downturn.

Separation of Jerusalem from West Bank

Before the First Intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) began in the late 1980s, East Jerusalem contributed approximately 14 to 15 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). By 2000, that number had dropped to less than eight percent; in 2010, the East Jerusalem economy, compared to the rest of the OPT, was estimated at only seven percent.

“Economic separation resulted in the contraction in the relative size of the East Jerusalem economy, its detachment from the remaining OPT and the gradual redirection of East Jerusalem employment towards the Israeli labour market,” the U.N. report found.

Decades ago, Israel adopted a policy to maintain a so-called “demographic balance” in Jerusalem and attempt to limit Palestinian residents of the city to 26.5 percent or less of the total population.

To maintain this composition, Israel built numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements inside and in a ring around Jerusalem and changed the municipal boundaries to encompass Jewish neighbourhoods while excluding Palestinian ones.

It is now estimated that 90,000 Palestinians holding Jerusalem residency rights live on the other side of the separation barrier and must cross through Israeli checkpoints in order to reach Jerusalem for school, medical treatment, work, and other services.

“Israel is using all kinds of tools to push the Palestinians to leave; sometimes they are visible, and sometimes invisible tools,” explained Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER).

Al-Hammouri told IPS that at least 25 percent of the 1,000 Palestinian shops in the Old City were closed in recent years as a result of high municipal taxes and a lack of customers. “Taxation is an invisible tool…as dangerous as revoking ID cards and demolishing houses,” he said. “Israel will use this as pressure and as a tool in the future to confiscate these shops and properties.”

The short piece that follows has very little to do with Palestine, it is not about the starvation in Gaza, it tells nothing about Israeli road blocks, it is not about the right of return. It will have zero effect on Palestine or the enormous Palestinian suffering. It is about a tiny group of Jewish activists who made solidarity into an ongoing nightmare. This piece is written with some severe pangs of conscience. I wanted to believe that we would never have to get there.

This small piece is dedicated in particular to Mr. Tony Greenstein, a Palestinian Solidarity activist who is engaged solely in smearing and throwing mud on other activists, especially intellectuals with some continental appetite.

Two years ago, I had come across his name for the first time. It happened after I performed in a very moving event in remembrance of the Deir Yassin massacre. The event was organized by DYR and it was by far the biggest Palestinian event and gathering of Palestinians I have ever come across in the UK. I was shocked to find out a few days later that a group of Jewish activists who call themselves ‘anti-Zionists’, for some peculiar reason, were investing some enormous energy in destroying DYR.

Bewildered by their viciousness, I then started to monitor what is known as the Palestinian solidarity activity of the Jewish people in the UK. For the first time in my life I confronted the real meaning of Diaspora Jewish identity, for the first time I learned what segregation and Goy hating is all about. For the first time in my life I realized how devastating Jewish lobbying is. I summarized my impression in a satirical piece that was comprised of genuine quotes made by those very few JAZ (Jewish anti-Zionists). I called it ‘The Protocols of The Elders of London’. The piece was circulated vastly. I was convinced at the time that the piece would have a positive impact in increasing some self-awareness amongst those activists. Indeed, some left the group known as Just Peace UK, where the quotes themselves came from, some admitted to being Zionists and joined Engage, some just disappeared but a very few were left to retaliate. This was indeed a beginning of a world war.

It didn’t take long before Tony Greenstein, one of those quoted, found an opportunity to hit back. The next time I learned about him was when he organized a picket against me outside a London Marxist bookshop (Bookmarks). As a result of my circulating a piece written by Paul Eisen, whom he regards as a NASHD&M (‘Nazi’, ‘Anti-Semite’, ‘Holocaust Denier’ and a ‘maggot’), Greenstein tried to stop one of my readings, blaming the SWP for ‘giving a platform’ to guess what: an ‘Anti-Semite’, ‘Racist’, a ‘Nazi’ and a ‘holocaust denier’. Yes Greenstein and his friends are not economical with expressions. Needless to say, that the SWP ignored them completely.

As time went by, I saw Greenstein tossing accusations in almost every possible direction, but then something rather unusual happened. A week ago Greenstein published a piece on the Guardian’s CIF, once again he was campaigning against DYR, blaming its Directors for nothing else but being Holocaust Deniers and Anti-Semites. This time Greenstein & Co wanted the UK Palestinian Solidarity campaign (PSC) to shun DYR. He did it in spite of the fact that DYR memorials are probably the biggest and most successful Palestinian gatherings in Britain.

Within the first few hours after publication, the Guardian blog filled up with the usual meaningless Zio-centric comments, yet one was made by an unknown character with the nickname of Sachman who was referring to Greenstein’s past: "Is this the same Tony Greenstein who was banned from National Union Of Students Conferences in the 1980's for hitting a Jewish student?" (CIF) Some red lights started to flash. I asked myself whether it was possible that the same Greenstein who picketed against me, calling me an anti-Semite was himself involved in some violent acts against Jews. I may admit that I myself have never been involved in any violent incident, either against Jews or anyone else and this includes the 3 years I had wasted in the IDF. I asked myself, is it the same Greenstein who accuses my friend, activist Paul Eisen, the most peaceful person I have ever come across, of being a racist?

At that stage I was totally convinced that the accusations against Greenstein were nothing but trash from a Zionist plant. I raised the question at the Peacepalestine blog. It didn’t take too long before some devastating information about Greenstein’s past started to flood in.

Apparently, Greenstein has a lot to hide, his personal history is tainted with some unsavory unlawful activity. Yet, this is not the issue here. I do not care much about people’s past. Nevertheless, Greenstein is famous for passing ethical judgments on others. I tend to believe that people who are engaged in righteous preaching should themselves stand as an example of moral clarity. Moreover, though I do not hold Greenstein’s past against his present activity, I do believe that a politician who runs some deadly defamation campaigns and motions against an international Palestinian solidarity group and solidarity activists should be prepared to have his own past exposed.

David Cameron, the Tory leader, had to confront the resurfacing of his juvenile affair with cannabis. Blair and Clinton had to face the music (both on guitar and on saxophone) of their old crimes that were exposed to the public in their first electoral campaigns. In case you decide to live a political life, you have to bear in mind that your past becomes public property.

Greenstein couldn’t agree less. Once he realized that more than a few of us were starting to learn about his rather serious unlawful past, a new measure of threatening tactics were put into place.

Indeed, the British law allows convicted criminals to lie about their past after the period of spent conviction. The law is indeed morally correct. It allows the convicted person to open a new page. The British law allows Mr Greenstein to lie about his past, yet it doesn’t necessarily mean that the rest of the world should do the same.

However, whether people do or do not lie about their past is neither my concern nor my business. Nevertheless, when a politician tries to impose a lie on me I have to stand up against that. When a person with such a past insists upon dictating the ethical ground of the Palestinian solidarity agenda, I just go for a war.

But there are some wider ethical and ideological implications that should be explored. Interestingly enough, Greenstein presents himself as a Shoah historian. Not that he has written any book or produced any body of substantial work about the subject. However, he is obsessed with the issue of Holocaust denial and historical revisionism. Thus, it is rather amusing that Greenstein has such little respect for historicity when it comes to his own past.

One categorical question to do with Greenstein’s double standards is left open. If Greenstein is indeed convinced that he is legally entitled to lie about his past due to his ‘spent convictions’, what exactly gives him the right to confront the Israelis about their 1948 crimes? If that is the case, wouldn’t it be better to just forget it all? Is there some point where law takes priority over truth, where the loopholes that exist should be taken advantage of to promote a personal cause or even to cover up something unpleasant or even criminal? Using that reasoning, if Greenstein adopts the rehabilitation law so enthusiastically, would he have something to say by analogy and about just how much one can mention the Nazi crimes. Wouldn’t the Nazis deserve the same measures of spent convictions, if we are taking the ethical stance of Greenstein at face value? Or is there a mobile moral compass that he is aware of that the rest of us still haven’t grasped?

Actually, I am not interested in Greenstein’s answer to those questions. I believe in forgiveness, in grace and in love. I believe that to understand the Holocaust is to understand its meaning rather than its historicity. I believe that to understand the Nakba is to understand its meaning. If Greenstein would understand the meaning of his own past in terms of abuse of others, he may stop being a bully and a self-appointed inquisitor. I can easily live with Greenstein’s past as long as he presents me with an image of an empathic future.

I do feel guilty for writing this piece. I do feel guilty for being personal and referring to the conduct of an old man who may as well be a good man with a genuine positive will. But I am afraid that by avoiding it I would betray my beliefs. The smearing and the defamation must be stopped. I believe that Solidarity with Palestine must be based on an ethical thinking, on empathy and on love between people. I am tired of those hateful campaigns run by Greenstein and his friends, I am tired of people being labeled Nazis, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. Enough is enough.

I would never suggest banning Greenstein and his friends, though this is exactly what they suggest doing to others. All I ask for is a free discourse. A dialogue that allows different people to think differently. I have written this piece with regret. I was always hoping that we would never have to get there. The solidarity movement should move forward, it is all about Palestine rather than about the four or five UK Marxist Jews who care solely about anti-Semitism. Palestine solidarity is about Palestine. It is not about Jews being anti-Zionists. It is about people who protest against the inhuman crimes committed by the Jewish state.

An Israeli born Jew who served in the Israeli army, currently living in London. He is a top professional jazz musician playing saxophone and clarinet.

The ceasefire in Lebanon was holding by a thread last night after Israel sanctioned a commando raid in the east of the country. Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, said Israel had violated the truce, and he was 'deeply concerned' about it. The Guardian.

For those familiar with Israeli aggression, the IDF violation was no surprise at all. For a week or so, every Israeli cabinet member and military official promised publicly that it is just a question of time before there is a second round. Indeed, they must come up with something. Since the end of the hostilities, all Israeli political analysts and polls suggest that Israels political and military leadership failed completely. If elections were to be held soon, both Labor and Kadima would simply disappear. It is no secret that with each passing day, Olmerts and Peretzs popularity continually slumps to new lows. Jerusalem Post.

One may wonder whether the Israelis are changing their spots, do they stop approving Olmerts policies just because peace is what they really prefer? The influential political commentator Ari Shavit provided an answer two weeks ago. Mr Olmert, so he says, had failed shamefully and should resign. Shavit continues, "You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power." As I mentioned more than once before, the Israeli politician has to cope with a demanding, bloodthirsty crowd.

This realisation throws some light over the reasons behind the failed Israeli operation in Lebanon just three days ago. Israelis are simply desperate to win. But it may also explain why Israeli government decided to expand its military operation pretty much at the same time it accepted the UN ceasefire resolution. Olmert knew that he must serve his voters with what they interpret as a clear-cut victory. This would mean either some severe form of revenge with lots of Arab casualties or a significant land invasion. Olmert, his national unity government and the army leadership have to do something that would cover up four weeks of disastrous military campaign that failed to serve the Israeli public with even a single second of glory.

Indeed, the IDF military offensive doctrine is grounded on one basic axiom that was defined by David Ben Gurion in the early fifties: whatever it takes, Israel must always win! This axiom is indeed very powerful, yet, in reality, the Israeli army cant provide the goods anymore. In the last three decades the Israeli army is constantly being beaten time after time by enemies that are getting smaller and smaller.

Yet, one may mention that the IDF isnt very original in being defeated. The IDF fails exactly where the American army has been failing since Vietnam. Shockingly, the IDF has managed to copy every possible American mistake. It religiously adopted the new American military philosophy of a compact highly sophisticated fighting force. Undeniably, this very doctrine is very effective in producing some gigantic collateral damage i.e., war crimes. Yet, in the long run, it fails miserably in wining wars. The new American military doctrine may win a battle or two but no more than that. In the most recent years it has been totally beaten in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza and obviously in Lebanon.

Though the early stages of the Israeli campaign in Lebanon looked very much like the first few days of the second Gulf War (major air assault on civilian infrastructure and populated areas), there is at least one major noticeable difference. While America can stand and even ignore international criticism referring to its own war crimes, it isnt willing to suffer much international criticism for Israeli atrocities. While in the early stages of the war America was rushing to provide Israel with air convoys loaded with its most lethal conventional arsenal, we have learned towards the last week of the war that the American administration changed its mind, it suddenly refused to provide the IDF with a shipment of cluster bombs because it “would endanger the civilian population. Seemingly, there is a limit to what the Americans are willing to do for their closest friend in the Middle East.

This is exactly where the Israeli limbo is. In order to maintain its status as a winning regional super power, Israel needs the blind support of America (politically, financially and logistically). Yet American blind support can be grunted to Israel only if the Jewish State is indeed a regional super power to start with. Olmert and his government are fully aware of this very complexity. They know that without being a regional super power in the first place, they have nothing to offer their almighty American brothers. Israel is crucial for the strategy of the Americans as long as it can wipe out all its enemies in six days at the most. The way things appear now, the Israeli Army is basically defeated by the two smallest nations in the Arab world, the Palestinian and the Lebanese ones.

As much as it clear to the Israelis, it is clear to the Americans that unlike the bold Hezbollah, the IDF soldier has lost his will to fight. The IDF is a spoiled, confused and tired army that is specializing solely in terrorizing civilian populations while being engaged in constant tactical withdraw. This Israeli Army is not trained to win wars anymore. Instead, its tank battalions are mainly engaged in daily shelling of schools and hospitals. Its Air Force uses the best American fighter planes to flatten neighborhoods and shoot deadly rockets at cars in the streets of Gaza. Its command units are expert in abducting democratically elected middle-aged Palestinian politicians. The IDF is basically a heavy army specializing in merciless regional bullying. Yet, it cannot win a war, and as such it has nothing to offer the American empire.

But the Israeli military defeat has some further implications. Israel without a victorious army, has nothing to offer to world Jewry either. It can never present itself as the ultimate cosmic Judeo bunker. It is pretty shocking to prospect the relative silence of the infamous Zionist media shield. While just six weeks ago the loud supporters of Anglo-American interventionism were still pushing for democracy in the Arab world and beyond, they were enthusiastic about killing in the name of human rights and about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East. Somehow, since the war began, since Israel revealed once again its murderous tendencies and Hezbollah proved to be the new Robin Hood, these voices are caving in. Many among the global Zionists do already understand now that the Anglo-American assault on the Arab world just suffered a major blow. Some of them probably grasp that it is just a question of time before more and more Europeans and Americans join the sacred battle against the Americanized Global Zionism, i.e., neo-conservatism.

The recent victory of the Hezbollah therefore must be realized as a major event with some global implications. While the Hezbollah regards itself a paramilitary organization concerned mainly with some local issues having to do with Israeli expansionism, it has managed to cause a serious blow to neo-conservatism as a political praxis as well as a philosophy. It has beaten the Zionized Anglo-American worldview. Standing up to Zionism and Americanism, it is the Lebanese, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Afghanis and the Iranians who happen to be at the vanguard of the war for humanity and humanism. For those who are yet to be convinced that this indeed the case, I will mention that the fact that it is Iran who rushed to pay 3 billion dollars to rebuild Lebanon after the destruction made by American interventionism leaves no room for interpretation. While America spreads destruction and death all over the world, it is Iran and the Hezbollah that offers a new beginning.

Olmert knows very well that if Israel doesnt win this war, it is global Zionism that is defeated, he knows as well that without the backing of global Zionism, Israel is basically a dead entity. Olmert knows that without America, it wont take long before Israel turns into an historic event. Israel will have to win its mighty regional power status whatever it takes. Israeli is indeed in the very eye of the neo-conservative storm. And the Hezbollah is threatening something far greater than just the Jewish State. As the Israelis keep telling us, the fight in Lebanon will resume soon and every European leader knows it.

Even now, they all know who is going to be the aggressor when violence spreads again in the region. They are all clever enough to hesitate about whether they want to send their soldiers to the region. They know that if Israel must win, it is better to stay out of its way.

Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military.

In the last ten days of his life the world held its breath following what appeared to be an everlasting battle between a giant freedom fighter and the angel of death. Many of us were following the news with care, many of us were praying for the president's recovery. Apparently, not all of us: we also had a chance to see some necrophiliac Israeli ministers who would not let go, for them this was an opportunity to entertain themselves with fatality, an opportunity not to be missed. They tried to convince us for the last time that Arafat was a terrorist, that the notion of him being buried in Jerusalem amongst ‘Jewish Kings’ was inconceivable. These Israelis leaders insisted on telling us that this great man was an ‘enemy of peace’. But as it seems, their viciousness didn’t prevail.

By now the world is accustomed to Israeli politicians and their utter lack of manners, not to mention a complete absence of empathic qualities. And yet, Jewish ministers and the Israeli media were dismayed to discover that once again, Jewish sadism had been defeated, if anything it was found to be counter effective. With worldwide extensive coverage on all news networks, Arafat was buried today as an admired world-class leader. Arafat is probably the last popular ‘people’s leader’. A man of the people, who failed to become an American puppet or even an autocrat bureaucrat. For three years, the old man was encircled in his bombarded compound, occasionally his life was put at a severe risk; the Muqata, the building in which he spent his final year, was torn apart and a threat of collapse was imminent for more than two years. In spite of his age, without electricity or running water, in spite of daily humiliation by the people who colonised his land, the man didn’t surrender. And yet the Israelis never stopped, when they didn’t bomb him they wanted to cleanse him. But the man did not give up. Presenting his people with the greatest form of mighty dignity, he encouraged them to resist and they did.

It was shocking to find out that the Israeli politicians and media outlets were foolish enough to bully the dying man. How blind can you be to the most basic sense of humanity? The old labour Zionists were as sadistic as their right wing successors but at least they were fully engaged in disguising their real motives. They always at least pretended to be peace lovers. It now appears that the current leading Israelis are far more genuine. Much like their ancient biblical ancestors, they went for the most banal vulgar populist choice; they provided their crowd with the most bloody message of vengeance. Israeli identity is obsessed with the search for the notion of ultimate revenge. The sensation of coming down on their defenceless foes like a ton of bricks makes them feel very pleased with themselves. This rather awkward philosophy matured into the Israeli official political and military strategy. The elected Israeli government is there merely to provide the Israelis with Palestinian blood. The Israeli government have very little claim for fame on any other front, neither in economy nor in social security, nor indeed in personal security. They specialise in providing the Israeli public with a high Palestinian death rate. In tactical terms they define it as ‘power of deterrence’ but in practice it is better articulated as sheer bloodthirstiness.

Very much like their biblical ancestors, the Israelis like to see their enemy beaten to death,whether it is an old dying Arafat or a family annihilated by a gun ship in Gaza. As terrifying as it sounds, the pain of others makes the Israelis cheerful. This is the only explanation for the murderous activities enacted by the Israeli army in occupied territories. This is the only explanation for them bullying the dying Arafat even when it was clear that he was on his last legs. The concept of compassion is completely foreign to them.

It now appears that the emancipation of the Jewish people that led to the birth of Zionism: a racist, colonialist and nationalist state, is now evolving into its very last phase: a sadistic manifestation. Israel is engaged in the daily bullying of the Palestinian people. When bullying gets boring, they go for the kill; when killing gets boring, they humiliate the dying Arafat. The Israelis enjoy their overwhelming power. At the end of the day, it must be quite good fun to threaten the entire region with your colossal nuclear destructive power.

But then, it is not entirely surprising that the Western world and especially the Europeans are uneasy with the latest manifestation of Zionism. They stand and stare at current events with a sense of familiarity. For Westerners, the passion of Arafat and the via-delerosa of the Palestinian people isn’t a revelation, it is merely a repetition. A repetition of the birth of the entire Western ethos, an ethos that is based upon the denunciation of sadism and the endorsement of empathy. Israel is going the other way, it is the narcissistic embodiment of any possible inhuman sense. It is the celebration of cruelty. History teaches us that when sadistic narcissism reveals its face, the end should be anticipated. Israel's days are numbered; it is just a question of time before they turn against themselves.

Since the earliest days of Zionism, the question of polarity between right-wing and left-wing Zionism has been more than a little confusing. Where Zionism is concerned, it is difficult to determine who is the dove and who is the hawk. It was Ben Gurion, the legendary Labour leader, who led the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of Palestine in 1948. It was Menachem Begin, the legendary hawk, who signed the peace deal with Egypt in 1977. It was Rabin, the Labour minister of defence, who ordered the Israeli platoons to break the arms and legs of Palestinians (during the first intifada). And now, it appears, it is the Israeli Peace Now movement which support Sharon's unilateral withdrawal. Many of the elder doves support the Separation Wall - unsurprising, considering the fact that it was Haim Ramon, a Labour minister, who was the first to come up with the idea of such a wall. At the end of the day, Jewish peaceniks love the two-state solution. More than simply loving peace, they actually want to live in peace.

We should ask ourselves whether there is any substantive difference between the Israeli left and right. Many Middle Eastern commentators raised this question many years ago. As a matter of fact, Israeli left-right polarity is no more than a virtual concept. In his book, The Iron Wall, Avi Shlem argues that, in practice, the Israeli "left" leadership adopted hard-line right-wing philosophy since the 1930s. A paper published a few days ago by the Israeli political scientist Neve Gordon explains the current emerging alliance between Peace Now and Sharon. Here is what Gordon says: "In terms of militarist ideology, certain elements within Peace Now hold views that are in many ways similar to Sharon's." According to Gordon, Peace Now are in fact endorsing a nationalistic Zionist interpretation that is utterly "non-universalistic".

Within this very discussion, it is crucial to mention that, even Uri Avnery and Gush Shalom, the most vocal humanist voices of the Israeli Jewish population, support the two-state solution. In fact, they argue that the two peoples should be separated. As it appears, the only real debate within the Israeli left is how high the separation wall be. If these are the Israeli doves, who needs Jewish warmongers?

So, is there any difference between right and left in Israel? I would argue that, if there is any difference, it is more of a cultural one. It is a form of speech and dress code rather than a substantive philosophical or ideological dispute. Although the ideological differences between the two camps are barely marginal, it is crucial to show that, in fact, it is the Israeli left's practice that is far more harmful for the Palestinian interests. While Israel's left pushes towards the transformation of Palestine into a web of isolated Bantustan-like patches (Bark at Camp David), it is the right-wing expansionist views that lead both Israelis and Palestinians to acknowledge the possibility of a one-state reality.

It appears that, within the internal Israeli left's discourse, Jewish peaceniks identify with secularity, rationality and sanity. In their eyes, these elements are the voice of reason. They would argue that right-wing Zionism is messianic. They would equate it with irrationality and insanity. In response, right-wing Zionists would argue that, considering the very real threat to the existence of the Israeli state, the left's behaviour appears to be irrational, even suicidal.

Let me state loud and clear that, within the general parameters of Zionist discussion, the right-wing argument is quite rational. Very much like the Palestinians, the right wing have noticed that left Zionists have no intention of addressing the Palestinian cause. The Israeli left camp never acknowledged the 1948 mass expulsion of the Palestinian population. The Israeli left denies the Palestinian right of return and avoids the issue of Jerusalem. In practice, the Israeli left supports peace with the Palestinians as long as the latter are left out in the desert. Moreover, if we look into left Zionist philosophy, we find out that it is, in fact, no less messianic or irrational than its counterpart. Even if we accept the bizarre assumption that Jews are a nation and are entitled to piece of land, it doesn't necessarily imply that this land should be in Palestine (Zion). As a matter of fact, it was left Zionism that invented the notion of the colonization of Zion. It was left Zionism which transformed the Bible from being a spiritual text into a legal document (a land registry). If this isn't messianic, then the notion of messianism should be redefined. Since it is left Zionism that invented the notion of "redemption of the land", the American settlers who flood the West Bank in the name of their Jewish God are, in practice, the real followers of the left Zionist school.

So, where exactly is the political dispute? Apparently, left Israelis amended their world view in the last decade. They would still argue that the land of Zion should be redeemed but they'd agree to be far more flexible when referring to the definition of Israeli territory. While the right wing would talk enthusiastically about the redemption of the whole of greater Israel, left-wing Zionists adopted a more moderate take on the subject. For the peacenik, Israel is where he lives, i.e. within the 1967 borders. The peacenik would roll his eyes, arguing that there is indeed room for the two peoples on this land (as long as he stays in Tel Aviv and the Palestinian stays in Gaza). He would propose to erect a separation wall, and shred the Holy Land into Bantustans. Of course, he would turn a blind eye to the blatant fact that the vast majority of pre-1967 Israel is, in fact, confiscated Palestinian lands. Israeli doves refuse to admit that the vast majority of the Palestinian people are in fact dispossessed refugees. They live in complete denial of their present and past. They are happy with the concept of peace as long as they determine its terms and conditions. Funnily enough, Sharon and his unilateral withdrawal follow that very philosophy.

While trying to analyse Sharon's acts, we should remember that the big man himself grew up in the Israeli left. Much like his mentors, Sharon adopted an offensive military doctrine. He believes in the Israeli power of deterrence. He believes in a Jewish democratic state rather than a state of its citizens, He believes that it is Israel that should dictate the fate of the region. This is the story behind his unilateral withdrawal. This is the story behind his separation wall. This is very much the essence of left Zionism.

This leads us to the absurd realization of the Israeli political environment. While the Israeli left endorses the most radical nationalistic and supremacist interpretation of Zionism, it is actually the Jewish right-wing expansionist philosophy that pushes towards a one-state solution. In fact, it is the settlers from Brooklyn who are going to help the Palestinians to establish a multicultural society throughout the whole of Palestine. It is the American Jewish zealots who turn this wet dream into reality. This is where the settlers become so vital for the chance of the Palestinian future.

As it appears, the one-state solution is the only viable option from now on.