“ARABIC TV does not do our country justice,” President Bush complained in early 2006, calling it a purveyor of “propaganda” that “just isn’t right, it isn’t fair, and it doesn’t give people the impression of what we’re about.”

The president’s statement, along with the decision by the New York Stock Exchange to ban Al Jazeera’s reporters in 2003, is a prime example of how the Arab news media have been demonized since the 9/11 attacks. As a result, America has failed to make use of what is potentially one of its most powerful weapons in the war of ideas against terrorism.

For proof, in the last year we surveyed 601 journalists in 13 Arab countries in North Africa, the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula. The results, to be published in The International Journal of Press/Politics in July, shatter many of the myths upon which American public diplomacy strategy has been based.

Rather than being the enemy, most Arab journalists are potential allies whose agenda broadly tracks the stated goals of United States Middle East policy and who can be a valuable conduit for explaining American policy to their audiences. Many see themselves as agents of political and social change who believe it is their mission to reform the antidemocratic regimes they live under. When asked to name the top 10 missions of Arab journalism, they cited political reform, human rights, poverty and education as the most important issues facing the region, trumping Palestinian statehood and the war in Iraq. Overwhelmingly, they wanted the clergy to stay out of politics. And, aside from the ever-present issue of Israel, they ranked “lack of political change” alongside American policy as the greatest threats to the Arab world.

Though many Arab journalists dislike the United States government, more than 60 percent say they have a favorable view of the American people. They just don’t believe the United States is sincere when it calls for Arab democratic reform or a Palestinian state, as President Bush did again this month in Egypt.

Make no mistake, the Arab press has many flaws, including being subject to state control; only 26 percent of our respondents said they felt their fellow Arab journalists “act professionally” and only 11 percent said they were truly independent in their work. Nevertheless, Arab news outlets are more powerful and free today than at any time in history. If the next administration is going to try to reach out to the Arab people, it won’t get far by blaming the messenger.

Palestinian youths form one of the largest sectors of Palestinian society, a sector that is often overlooked and requires close attention when trying to solve the challenges facing it.

Broadly speaking, young Palestinians face challenges and conflicts on three fronts: "family" conflicts, "social" conflicts and "political" conflicts.

A subject that is rarely broached in Palestinian society is that of family conflicts. There are enough dysfunctional families in society for this to be an issue of serious concern and there is now also a major problem of families that have been separated, especially in the past seven years and as a result of the difficulties imposed on the movement of Palestinians within and between the Palestinian areas.

Youths from such families become victims as their insecurities at home affect behavior. It is clear that young people who suffer conflict within their families face a lack of motivation in school and at work, can become violent and generally lack confidence in themselves.

Another important challenge Palestinian youth face is the "social" conflict, pitting traditional values against modernity, fundamentalism against liberalism. With developments in technology, youths are very exposed to other cultures and traditions. These new ideas and influences often contradict, or seem to contradict, the values they have been brought up with or that they see around them. Often, young people start to make comparisons and contrasts that don't actually help them realize a transition in their thoughts. Consequently, one of two things is likely to happen: they blindly imitate another culture, leaving them alienated from their surroundings; or they totally reject any outside influence, turning away from new ideas and thoughts.

The final and greatest challenge Palestinian youths face is of course the political conflict with Israel. As in so many areas of Palestinian lives, any resolution or progress toward resolution of the many challenges facing young Palestinians will be extremely limited in the absence of a resolution to the one conflict that all Palestinians have to deal with on a daily basis and that affects so many areas of life.

The suffocating occupation affects young people in a multitude of ways, whether directly and in the short term in the form of the absence of decent employment opportunities, the inability to move freely from area to area let alone country to country, and the lack of control over their own political destinies, or in the long term, where psychological factors may inflict more damage insofar as the occupation instills a deep sense of mistrust toward authority and creates enormous anger. Witness how young people identify with the suicide bombers of the intifada. Look at the disruptions to normal life that they have to suffer on a daily basis, whether in terms of curfews, fear of simply walking the streets should a military incursion be under way or the humiliation of waiting in endless lines at checkpoints with not even a guarantee that one can cross. This anger is real, deep and will not go away overnight.

But the political conflict is evolving now to include more than just Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The growing Palestinian-Palestinian conflict, which started in Gaza, is moving slowly but surely, infiltrating other parts of the land, especially between young people because of their misinterpretation of authority and power.

Palestinian youth, like any nation's youth, plays a key role in the development of the country's culture, politics, economy and education. The PA, interested organizations and individuals should work hard to guarantee a peaceful life for active non-violent youths by building their capacities, training them on issues related to society and communication, opening their horizons to other cultures, reinforcing conflict management training courses on a community level and creating a fruitful basis to enable them to achieve their ambitions and improve their skills.- Published 30/7/2007 © bitterlemons.org

Understanding the trends among the younger generation is an important way of predicting the future opinions and direction of any nation. It also gives us an early warning capability of negative trends that may be dealt with before it is too late.

Palestinian youths are different from most nations' youths. They are especially vulnerable to political factors affecting their reality, including their social and economic situations. Indeed, education and later job opportunities, access to decent health and social services, in addition to access to the special needs of youth like places of entertainment and sports, all depend on the political situation. This explains why Palestinian youths are so political.

There are many reasons to believe that the political opinions of Palestinian youths are not average but rather veer to the relatively hard line. First, cross tabulation of poll results conducted in the Palestinian territories since the peace process began show that age is a significant factor in determining answers to political questions such as attitudes to the political process, signed agreements and means of struggle.

Second are the results of the frequently conducted student council elections, which have shown steadily growing student support for political factions and groups that oppose the peace process and signed agreements, support violent means of resistance and promote fanatic ideologies.

We should take these indicators seriously as predictions of a trend of future radicalization in Palestinian society. Half the population, due to high population growth, is at age 16 and below. The question is what can be done in order to counter such trends and change them into more positive ones?

The key word in any answer is "hope". After finishing high school, which is free and compulsory, young Palestinians face great difficulties in finding higher education places because local universities are limited to a few specialties as well as in terms of capacity. Opportunities to study abroad are even more limited, not least because of the expense.

At the same time, job opportunities are even more difficult to come by for both school and university graduates, leaving young people at this critical age unemployed, helpless and hopeless. If we add to this the effect of the humiliation resulting from the treatment meted out to them by Israeli soldiers--mostly of the same age--waiting at checkpoints, seeing Israeli bulldozers uproot trees or demolish houses, having family members thrown in prison and hearing horrible tales of torture, it all adds up to an inevitable radicalization of those youths.

To reverse these trends requires reversing both the practices and consolidation of the occupation and the dire socio-economic situation. The one will not happen without the other. To improve educational and professional opportunities requires a parallel lessening of the impact of the occupation and ultimately its end. Only then can Palestinian youths busy themselves with the normal preoccupations of their counterparts elsewhere, building careers and families.

It was not accidental that US President Barack Obama ignored the Middle East issue in his annual speech known as the State of the Union address. He did not refer to the issue at all as part of his administration’s activities, which is worrying, as last year following his presidential victory, he began his speeches by speaking optimistically about the peace process.

Has Barack Obama reached the same conclusion that his predecessor Bill Clinton reached by the end of his term in office following the failure of the negotiations with Yasser Arafat? Clinton advised his successor George W. Bush not to make the same mistake i.e. to avoid the [Middle East] issue as the warring factions are not serious about achieving any kind of peace.

Despite the advice, Bush tried his luck when he declared his willingness to recognize two states – one Palestinian, one Israeli – as part of the peace process, however this was fruitless. A few weeks later, the events of 9/11 took place, which silenced any talk of anything other than the fight against Al Qaeda.

After winning the presidential elections, President Obama was very optimistic and prioritized the Palestinian cause over other issues, including fighting terrorism, which caused him to face heavy criticism in the US. Nevertheless, Obama pushed on with his attempts, relying on the impartial mediator, George Mitchell, a man whose neutrality has never been doubted and a man who has never been accused of siding with Israel. Following months of talks, Obama was faced with a big shock after the mediator admitted to him that nobody seems interested in solving the issue.

We are now about to enter a new, calm round of negotiations or perhaps a final attempt to convince both parties that negotiation is necessary in order to reach peace. Is peace more likely to be established under today’s circumstances and under the patronage of an impartial president and a fair mediator? There is a real chance as long as there is a real will to end the conflict that has forced millions to live as refugees or in exile and in conditions that any human being would not accept as part of the greatest injustice the world has experienced in decades.

New features indicate that this time the attempt is to expand the map of dialogue by allowing the Syrians to take part, and this is important as there is no peace without Syria. Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership will be given reason to sit down with the Israelis without preconditions through early acknowledgment and recognition of borders in order to trade borders for settlement land.

It is not an easy task but it is deserves [efforts and] attempts to push matters towards a new reality.

We must not forget that the Palestinian president – no matter who he might be – is an important figure not just for the West Bank, but for the entire Arab world. This is because the Palestinian President is the guardian of the most important cause – the Palestinian Cause – and therefore possesses exceptional [political] legitimacy in the Middle East's political arena. Therefore the issue that we are facing is one that concerns everybody. Mahmoud Abbas has thrown everybody into a state of confusion after announcing that he does not intend to stand for re-election in the forthcoming Palestinian presidential elections that are scheduled to take place in 9 weeks.

Everyone involved now finds themselves facing a real dilemma as a result of this announcement. Hamas, who called Abbas a traitor and attempted to have him removed from office, and once even tried to assassinate him, do not know whether to rejoice or be worried [for the future]. The Palestinian Authority leadership did not seem surprised by Abbas's decision, and nobody has yet dared to announce their candidacy to succeed him. Despite their implicit criticism of Mahmoud Abbas, the Americans have said that they will engage with him regardless of his [official] position, giving the impression that they will insist upon his presidency. The Arab governments – who each have a different position towards President Mahmoud Abbas – have remained silent, but they do not want him to leave office, at least not until he has put the Palestinian house in order.

And so will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas truly leave office next January?

Yes, but without the presence of Mahmoud Abbas the government – which almost spilt during the last Fatah elections – will be defenseless.

It has been made clear that the issue of political succession is a serious one in a society that has become accustomed to having leadership imposed, rather than the people being asked which leader they would prefer. In a society where culture and the practice of democracy has failed to take root must suffer an electoral climate where rule is imposed from above. This is what happened during the previous Palestinian elections, and the dispute with Hamas allowed Fatah to gain access to everything.

Fatah floundering in its search for an alternative to Mahmoud Abbas in itself can be considered a positive. This is to say that – despite its internal division – Fatah has matured and maintained disciple in the post-Arafat era with none of the Fatah leaders challenging Mahmoud Abbas's leadership after he assumed the presidency in 2004. This is a rare example of discipline, especially as several of the Fatah leaders consider themselves to be Arafat's rightful successful, however they accepted Mahmoud Abbas's presidency even though he won only 62 percent of the Palestinian vote.

Mahmoud Abbas's decision to leave the game of politics has placed everybody in an awkward position as they had already made plans based upon the assumption that Fatah would win at the forthcoming elections, Hamas would boycott the elections, and Mahmoud Abbas would be re-elected. However Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to quit, and he seems to mean what he says. Abbas has required that the terrifying question "who will be the next Palestinian president?" be raised. There is no consensus over a leader other than the consensus that there are no decisive leaders in the Palestinian arena, and there is no ready alternative [to Mahmoud Abbas] to lead the Palestinian people. The single name being put forward is that of Marwan Barghouti, the commander who raised his profile by leading the First Intifada 22 years ago. The Israelis attempted to extinguish his popularity by imprisoning him on a number of different occasions, finally sentencing him to life imprisonment. Barghouti was an important field commander, but is untried as a political leader. Ultimately he is the only figure that Fatah can put forward that would cancel out Hamas's claims of martyrdom and championing [of the Palestinian Cause], but there are several obstacles to him being named leader.

Nine months have passed since George Mitchell was entrusted with the task of preparing a peace plan between the Arabs and Israel, which the US President took on in order to set up a Palestinian state. The US President thought that it would take him a mere two weeks to start the negotiations, but no one appears to have learned from the past.

The one thousandth plan for negotiations is currently in the process of announcing its failure, and the reason is the same one that recurs in every project of negotiations. It is the Israeli prevarication and repeated Arab stubbornness. The Arabs do not look at the finishing line where the big prize lies.

The Israelis succeeded in preoccupying Mitchell and the PA with talk about halting the settlement activity, and this move enabled them to procrastinate.

We cannot blame Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his wasting of time because the Palestinians themselves are in line with the Israelis and the two sides engaged in a match of wrestling that wasted time and a golden opportunity. And we now see Mitchell leave us empty handed and unable to start negotiations.

I listened to statements made by chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat whom I regard with respect. He repeated the same conditions on starting the negotiations, as if negotiation were an American, not a Palestinian and Arab dream in order to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state.

In fact, I failed to understand the philosophy that makes him rigidly adhere to this condition, not because I differ with his view on the legitimacy of halting the settlement activity, but because it is a minor condition in a more important issue.

If the negotiations succeed, the settlements, including most of the ones where the Israelis live, will be evacuated, just as the Israelis evacuated the Sinai settlements after the Camp David Accord and just as the Gaza settlements were demolished when Israel withdrew from the Strip.

A final resolution will decide which settlements will be exchanged, which ones will be demolished, and which ones will be sold in a compensation process. This is the desired ending, except in one case, continuation of the occupation.

Erekat says a nice poem, but it is not practical at all. It serves the Israeli goal by blocking the plan of President Barack Obama who is in a hurry to begin negotiations. He gave himself 24 months beyond which the negotiations must not continue in order to prevent procrastination.

Very regrettably, the condition of halting the settlement activity wasted one of the most important opportunities for negotiations in the history of the Arabs, represented by the presence of a fair and enthusiastic president in the White House and the designation of Mitchell as an impartial negotiator who has no hostile agenda.

The PA will lose these two opportunities and will have to wait for another historical cycle until a new US president has been elected, with the hope that he will have the same sincere desire, which is uncertain.

Historically, the US presidential cycle shows that every president who is enthusiastic about achieving peace in the Middle East leaves the White House to be usually succeeded by a hesitant and indifferent president.

Former President Carter had a desire for peace and succeeded in enabling Egypt and Israel to sign the most important peace accord. He was succeeded by Reagan who shut the White House door eight years.

Then came Bush Senior who created a [favorable] climate in Madrid, but he was succeeded by Clinton who slept seven years and woke up in the eighth year to begin successful negotiations. But these negotiations evaporated because of the Arabs' lingering. He was succeeded by George W. Bush who ruled for eight years and only opened a small window to the road map.

Then came Obama who made the establishment of a Palestinian state his first official plan, but this plan was torpedoed by Palestinian conditions that played a disruptive role and served the Israeli side.

Yet, Mitchell secured some concessions from Netanyahu who made a commitment for a partial halt to the settlement building. It is considered the biggest commitment ever made by any Israeli prime minister before him. However, Erekat rejected these concessions, and his stand made me think that he was working in the government of Ismail Haniyeh. So, what will happen now?

Everyone knows that Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas differs much from his predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, in his method of managing crises. This prompted President Abbas many times to go into isolation and sometimes threaten to resign because he could bear internal and external pressures.

Had Abu-Ammar [Yasser Arafat] been alive and had he come under such a publicity attack over the Goldstone report, he would have rushed to deny and denounce and may have used someone as a scapegoat. And before doing that, he may have sought to appease the figures who lost in the past PLO elections, disregarding the true results in order to ensure that the losers, such as Nabil Amr, would not turn against him, support Hamas, and attack him.

One of the shortcomings of Abu-Mazin [President Abbas] is that he is less flexible and bargains less. Surely, he is not a political player who maneuvers right and left to avoid attacks. Rather, he sits in the middle making himself an easy target.

The Goldstone report was used against him by both his comrades and opponents alike, and they all sought to settle their accounts.

The funny thing is that Hamas, which used the dirtiest expressions against the Palestinian president because he agreed to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone report, is itself the party that rejected and attacked the report, considering it a Jewish conspiracy by Jewish Goldstone.

From Hamas's viewpoint, Abu-Mazin suddenly became a traitor and agent, his nationality should be withdrawn, and he must be tried because he agreed to postpone the discussion of the report.

Hamas has been playing the game of distortion against the PA leadership since 2005, and it made this game the primary goal in its political project.

Hamas steps up the campaigns against Abu-Mazin and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad because it knows very well that the government's performance in the West Bank is the best in the history of the Palestinian leadership in terms of its fairness and commitments toward its Palestinian citizens.

Historically, it has been a very familiar practice for Palestinian parties to exchange accusations to a point where each party accuses the other of being an agent. This practice is part of verbal exchanges and political frivolity.

In the past, leftist Palestinian groups, and Hamas afterward, accused Abu-Ammar of selling the cause. Earlier, "revolutionary" Fatah bragged about killing Palestinian officials on the pretext of treachery. In fact, all of these moves were domestic or regional political disputes that had nothing to do with Israel whatsoever.

In spite of what Abu-Mazin went through, no one at all observed that he ever used the method of liquidations, even when his men were killed when Hamas seized the entire Gaza Strip by force in a bloody street war between brothers and even when a Hamas cell was arrested as it sought to assassinate Abu-Mazin in Ramallah afterward. But this does not make him a president without mistakes.

Anyway, what is currently taking place is an organized onslaught on the PA over an invented case. The Goldstone report is not worth the ink in which it was written. At best, if the report is discussed, which is unlikely, it will be submitted to the UN Security Council where it will be revoked by a veto. Besides, the report itself incriminates Hamas in the recent war and says it too committed war crimes.

Very regrettably, what we see is a serious decline in Palestinian politicians' ethics. This decline weakens them and will make them lose a precious opportunity in the regional and international political climate that might strengthen their negotiating position, which is one million times more important than the Goldstone report and verbal heroisms.