Far from taking any steps towards institutionalized political unity, the Arabs of today appear incapable of reaching any agreement in response to any of the serious and dangerous situations facing the Arabs collectively. Any follower of mediatised intra-Arab political or social debates would note the absurd pattern where the majority of debates amongst Arab representatives turn into un-intelligible disputes, worthy only of sighs of frustration and disbelief.

The divergence in interests combined with an inability to communicate has rendered the thought of mere collaboration between Arabs naïve and utopian.

The impotence of the Arabs in Palestine, Iraq, Sudan and now Yemen has saddened and frustrated generations, leading them either to utmost indifference or, more seriously, to religious fanaticism.

Whilst we are aware that the depressed tone of this article so far would appeal to many of our cynical readers, our actual purpose is to show that the spirit of Arab Renaissance still exists and is capable of making a major comeback.

The first Arab Renaissance started in the second half of the Nineteenth century as a corollary to the cultural and educational awareness raised after Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt and the contact with the western world. A significant Arab movement led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca grew under the shadow of the First World War. It did not however survive the Ottoman Empire and disappeared with the British and French division and dominance of the Arab world. A more mature Renaissance movement saw the light in the 1950’s focusing on the struggle against the establishment of Israel and the support of national independent movements growing in the “post colonial” countries.

The death of Jamal Abdul Nasser followed by the Camp David accord in 1978 ended a movement which could not survive with Egypt out of the equation. The military resistance to the Israeli invasion in Lebanon in the summer of 1982 followed by the First and Second Palestinian Intifada in 1987 and 2000 is considered by certain authors as the Third Arab Renaissance movement.

According to Issam Noman, a Lebanese politician and thinker, the Third Renaissance has progressed to a new civilized project, in line with the globalisation movement of the 21st Century. A project, which according to Noman, should be based on“mutual exchange, the removal of constraints and borders amongst countries, people and cultures in response to the telecommunication and technological revolution”.

And it is here that we contend that a spirit of Arab unity persists and grows in the region today, despite all political realities and agendas that push doggedly in the opposite direction. First and foremost, a pan-Arab mentality is manifesting itself in the world of business. We are not talking here of any significant pan-Arab economic initiatives at the government level. With the exception of the good work being done at the level of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), efforts at economic coordination amongst Arab governments are pretty much dead in the water.

Still, Arab businessmen and companies are approaching the Arab world as one market. This comes not as the result of some rosy ideological attachments, but from a pure sense of business opportunities. Start–ups are springing up across the Arab world, starting in one Arab country and then moving swiftly to establish a presence in other Arab countries.

This trend is most visible in businesses that are grounded in the knowledge economy. Internet and new media enterprises must approach the Arab market as one, as it speaks one language. The success of enterprises like Zawya.com, Yamli.com, and Koora.com speaks volumes about the need to adopt a holistic approach to conducting business in Arabia.

Samih Toukan, co-founder of Maktoob.com, said at the recent ArabNet conference (http://www.arabnet.me/) in Beirut: “Investors look at Arab world as a whole…as one market.” In fact, nothing embodies the point of this article as the vibrancy and exuberance that was manifested at ArabNet. Speakers talked with passion about the need to foster and support the growing digital and entrepreneurial spirit in the Arab world. Young innovators from Jordan, Lebanon and many other Arab countries presented their projects to various investors who were focused on the Arab world as one unit.

Contrast this enthusiasm with that surrounding the annual Arab Summit that was held at the end of March in Sert, Libya. The level of popular interest was possibly at an all time low. Arabs, including their leaders, fully appreciate that a pan-Arab approach to regional challenges is at best futile.

However, there continues to be a strong Arab connection at the human level that pierces through this collective cynicism towards a unified political approach. For despite all the intelligentsia’s newfound realism that confines any form of Arab unity to obscurity, no one in his right mind would or could deny that basic, emotional link that still binds one Arab to another. It is that link that transcends the daily conflict that marks Arab politics.

This article aims to start a conversation. It is not about adopting slogans for or against Arab unity. It is about rational debate. Is the growing sense of one Arab market, driven by innovators and businessmen, a precursor to a grass roots movement towards the adoption of a truly integrated Arab economy? Is such a development worthy of our focus and effort? Could the human bond between Arabs be a driving force for unified Arab effort towards change?

Decades of failure will naturally lead many to respond negatively to these questions. But this is ultimately a knee jerk reaction that is, in and of itself, yet another manifestation of our decline.

We should seek positive conclusions from the encouraging realities on the ground. Whether it’s in the emerging success of Arab businesses, or in the engagement of the sense of Arab civil society to address our common regional challenges, there lies somewhere, potentially, the seeds of reform.

Amid this whirlwind of activity, it is fair to say that the average Arab’s assessment of US policy is rather puzzled. Arabs have gotten used to the US government’s absolute bias towards Israel, a bias that reached its ultimate climax under the forgettable George W. Bush.

President Obama has spoken a different language. He seems genuinely focused on trying to build a bridge over the long years of mistrust between the Arab masses and the US political establishment.

This of course came to a head in Obama’s extraordinary Cairo speech, a speech of grand ambition that was historic in every sense of the word. Suddenly, it seemed that there is an American President who has at least an inkling of Palestinian suffering, and who wanted to talk of Palestinian rights on an equal footing with those of Israelis. Obama went as far as comparing the Palestinian struggle to that of African Americans in the US over the last two hundred years.

The tone and body language were of a kind that Arabs have not seen in years. The focus of the US administration on putting pressure on Israel to stop all settlement activity, as well as the language on how resolution of this conflict is the key to other conflicts in the region, was refreshingly empathetic.

Faced with this barrage of messages from the US administration, Arabs are reacting in various ways. On the one hand, you have so many who still find refuge in the safety of cynicism; nothing will ever change when it comes to US policy, the US administration is beholden to the agenda of AIPAC… Etc. Some Arab writers, whilst acknowledging the existence of some divergence in views between Israel and the current US administration, argue that signs of slight conflict do not represent the beginning of any real crisis in relations. A more resigned view also exists, which holds that Arabs are clutching at straws and, in fact, there is no real change in American policy.

On the other hand, you have a large number of optimistic Obama admirers who are convinced Obama will bring real and lasting change to this issue as he did to American politics. They have bought in wholesale into the Obama mantra which saw him declare on the eve of elections, “together, we will change the world.”

While we are strong admirers of Obama, we feel that the best approach, as always, is somewhere in the middle. There is the air of change in Washington for sure. We must acknowledge that element of change, and assess Obama’s policy regarding this issue with a sober and calm head. Most importantly, Arabs must react to this new policy with a positive and enabling attitude to ensure that we seize the momentum and guide it towards a just and fair solution.

Let us analyze in a measured manner some of the changes that the Obama administration has introduced into this issue. Firstly, the matter of continuing settlement activity was covered in great detail in the press. This was not a publicity stunt. Obama’s insistence on ceasing any expansion of Israeli settlement in the West Bank was stronger in both substance and tone than that of previous administrations. While some writers like Noam Chomsky claim that Obama did not match his words with any radical action, such as linking Israeli compliance to US aid, it is self-defeating to pretend that positions have not changed in the slightest.

Secondly, unlike George Bush, Obama has so far refused to follow Israel’s argument that the root of the problem is Iran and not occupation. Obama has clearly distinguished between the issues of Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While any nuclear proliferation is a cause of concern, it is good to see that Obama has not fallen for the trap of ignoring all the wrongs of Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights in the interest of pursuing a separate foreign policy challenge. To quote Time magazine’s Tony Karon,

“the US President won’t buy Netanyahou’s sequencing …. Netanyahou will say no progress is possible on the Palestinian front until Iran is defanged; Obama will argue that rallying Arab support against Iran’s ambitions requires resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Thirdly, the US administration has introduced the sense of urgency into the necessity of salvaging the two–state solution. While this has been the position of previous administrations, the Obama team is eager to see the vision materialize with speed.

Uncertainty still reigns over many aspects of the current administration’s policies. For example, the US approach to Jerusalem is not clear at all. In a campaign speech last year to AIPAC, Obama made it clear that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel. This seemed to deny all Palestinian rights to parts of Jerusalem in line with United Nations resolutions. Although Obama has since toned down his position in this regard, seemingly as a result of the advice of seasoned advisors like former President Jimmy Carter, he has not yet proclaimed a definitive position.

It is our view that there is some form of change taking place. This new-found flexibility in the American approach is primarily due to two interrelated factors:

Obama is first of all a man of the world who listens intently to all sides of a story. He brings a fresh analytical approach to the highest office in the US.

Secondly, this change is the result of the Obama administration’s analysis of the long term interests of the United States in the region. Certain commentators have argued that Obama’s team sees the necessity of integrating Israel into the region in order to guarantee a more secure future for its ally.

However, the issue is not the rationale behind Obama’s stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The question is whether there is a momentum of change, and how can Arabs seize the initiative in the interest of Palestinian rights and justice for all. We cannot sit back and let our inherent cynicism destroy the opportunity of the moment, yet again. What good is there to achieve from burying our heads in the sand and bemoaning our misfortune, yet again.

Whatever conspiracy theory one can concoct out of thin air to justify Obama’s words and actions, it is high time for a proactive approach. Real change in politics can never come from resignation and passive aggression, which have dominated Arab political emotions for the last century.

Let us try to analyze the seeming shift and see how we can contribute to any momentum and actively encourage it. It is time to believe in our own capacity to contribute to the shaping of the future of the region.

Jonathan Mok: How should the Netanyahu speech be interpreted?

Nigel Ashton: Beyond uttering the words ‘Palestinian state’ Netanyahu has not yet conceded the creation of an entity which would have genuine sovereignty. His concept of ‘demilitarisation’ is so wide ranging that any Palestinian state created under it could not be deemed to have full control over its territory and would therefore not be sovereign. Nevertheless, he has at least conceded that peace negotiations cannot proceed on the basis of his opening position which amounted to little more than a form of economic autonomy. So there has at least been some movement in his position even if so far this is limited.

JM: It appears that the Arab world has been silent in response to Bibi’s speech. How do you perceive the apparent lack of interest?

NA: I think Arab leaders are allowing the United States to make the running at present in negotiations with Israel. The Arab peace plan is on the table and I am sure that if genuine negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians resumed Egypt and Jordan would be prepared to play their part in supporting the process.

JM: What do you think about Israel’s continuing exclusion of Hamas in peace negotiations?

NA: For nearly three decades, Israel refused to deal with the PLO and termed it a terrorist organisation. Eventually it did negotiate with the organisation so these things are not set in stone. Having said that, negotiations for a final settlement with Israel as opposed to a truce would effectively contravene the Hamas charter so there would have to be considerable movement on both sides before it would be possible to bring Hamas within the framework of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Even before we can reach that stage, though, means have to be found of repairing the Fatah-Hamas schism which will be a considerable challenge.

JM: Some of the demands in the speech have been listed by other Israeli leaders, including Olmert, Sharon and Peres. The demands include Jerusalem as the permanent capital of Israel and Palestinian abandonment of the right of return. Would it be wise for Abbas to agree with the demands in order to speed up the peace negotiations with Israel?

NA: I think Netanyahu would be astounded if Abbas agreed to these conditions, particularly those in relation to Jerusalem and the right of return. They are aimed at Netanyahu’s domestic constituency and not at the Palestinian leadership. If serious negotiations begin, these issues will inevitably have to be addressed. There is no way the Palestinian leadership can be expected to concede them in advance.

JM: With the growing divide between the United States and Israel, what will be the role of other negotation partners, such as the EU?

NA: The role of other negotiating partners will continue to be insignificant. I don’t perceive a growing US-Israeli divide. What we have is an administration which for the first time in a decade is taking the question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seriously. It’s inevitable when that happens that it will tend to put pressure on Israel to shift its position. That’s what has happened during previous phases of negotiation, most notably during Clinton’s second term in the late 1990s.

JM: Finally, how likely is it that there will there be an indepenent Palestinian state under the Obama administration?

NA: The obstacles are considerable. It will need a remarkably favourable combination of circumstances for this to happen within the next eight years, never mind four. History does not lead one to be optimistic since this conflict has proven remarkably intractable. The best one can say is that there is more of a window of opportunity now than there has been at any point during the last decade.

Jonathan Mok: Why and when did you get interested in the life of King Hussein?

Nigel Ashton: I’ve been interested in King Hussein ever since I was a PhD student back in the 1980s working on British and American policy in the Middle East during the Suez crisis. I was fascinated from an early stage by the way the King successfully negotiated a series of dangerous challenges to his position and the way in which he managed his relations with other powers in the region.

After King Hussein died in February 1999, I felt it was a good time to start researching a biography of him. Up to that point there had been no full biography written with the benefit of access to his papers and interviews with his close friends, family members, and confidants. Thereafter I made more than a dozen trips to Jordan between 1999 and 2007, carrying out a range of interviews with former political leaders and his close family members, including his wife Queen Noor and his eldest son, King Abdullah of Jordan.

Jonathan: King Hussein seemed never to employ anti-Semitic rhetoric to condemn the Israeli occupation and Jewish lobby in the United States. In fact, he was believed to be good terms with leaders such as Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin. How did the King view Jews and the Jewish state?

Nigel: As far as King Hussein was concerned, the first crucial step that had to be made before one could contemplate making peace was to empathize with those on the other side of the conflict. He felt that he had to show that he understood and appreciated the historical tragedy of the Jewish people in all its parts before peace would be possible. His strategy to achieve this goal involved the offering of endless reassurance to Israelis

Perhaps the best example of this came in March 1997 when, after a Jordanian soldier had gone mad and killed several Israeli schoolgirls on a field trip at Baqoura on the border between Israel and Jordan, the King flew to Israel and personally visited the bereaved families. His gesture of kneeling before them and offering his personal condolences had a profound effect in Israel, turning a tragedy into an event which helped cement relations between the two states. So, King Hussein was aware of the hopes and fears of Israelis and did his best to reassure them.

Jonathan: How did King Hussein influence his son, King Abdullah?

Nigel: I would say that [King Abdullah] has inherited much of his father’s shrewd grasp as to how to navigate in troubled political waters. He has built on his father’s close relations with the United States, but made sure that he has also remained close to the Arab middle ground on key issues such as the peace process with Israel.

King Abdullah has also improved relations with Saudi Arabia, which had been strained during the final years of King Hussein’s reign. He has been more inclined to focus his attention on key domestic problems as well, especially economic and administrative development, which his father tended to delegate to others. So, while the two monarchs have much in common, King Abdullah has inevitably brought a fresh perspective to some key issues.

Jonathan: While King Hussein was well-recognized for his diplomatic successes, he was also criticized for failing to modernize the country. Can we talk more about that?

Nigel: Hussein himself would have seen the achievement of peace with Israel as his greatest achievement. But, in the final three years of his life, he was already becoming frustrated at what he saw as the failure to translate this into a broader peace in the region. Although he blamed all parties for the failure, he was particularly critical of the role of the then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whom he believed had allowed the chance for a comprehensive peace, pursued by Yitzhak Rabin, to slip away.

From 1989 onwards the King pursued a program of domestic liberalization which opened the political system up to the opposition. However, this process had largely halted by the mid-1990s. The irony was that the making of peace with Israel, which was domestically unpopular, contributed to the slow down in domestic political reform. Despite this, King Hussein was certainly the most benevolent, open and fair-minded Arab leader of his generation. He dealt with opposition more by trying to co-opt it, or channel it, rather than by simply repressing it.

Jonathan: Finally, in your opinion, what lessons Arab leaders can take from the late King Hussein?

Nigel: I think the key lesson is the need for dialogue. Across the decades from the early 1960s when the King began to talk covertly to Israeli representatives he sought to resolve the problems of the region through debate, discussion and dialogue. Of course, this approach involved inevitable frustrations. In the aftermath of the 1967 war, when the King pressed hard for a broader peace settlement, his approach did not find a receptive audience in the region. But he persisted in his efforts which eventually bore fruit in the shape of the Jordanian-Israeli peace Treaty in the 1994.

The second lesson is how to deal with political opponents. For sure, the King’s regime had authoritarian aspects, but he was notoriously lenient in his treatment of political opponents, even those who had plotted against his person and his throne.

The final lesson concerns the exercise of power. Hussein understood that Jordan was a weak state in terms of its military and economic resources. But he consistently exercised disproportionate influence both through his moral authority and his subtle grasp of the hopes and fears of others. Empathy was ultimately his most useful tool in regional politics.

Alright, some of you out there will point out that a similar election exists in Iraq. But we must say that there aren’t many in the Arab world who are ready to sing the praises of a fragile democracy that literally came on the backs of hundreds of thousands of lost innocent lives, not to mention that the war in question was brought about by a certain W, whom the world is desperate to consign to the dark corners of the brain’s memory.

On the other hand, there are the details of the Lebanese elections. And in so many of those details Arabs cannot help but find signs of concern.

There is concern that the Arabs are perhaps historically and genetically unsuited to liberal democracy. While it is common to have long-lasting political dynasties in places as far and wide as Argentina, the US and India, the Lebanese have taken the art of political succession to new heights or, more accurately, unparalleled lows!

We are not talking here about one or two political dynasties. In Lebanon, it seems that a large number of the seats in Parliament have turned into family fiefdoms. Father passes on the mantle to the son, or the son to the brother, or the husband to the wife, and on and on. And we cannot help but marvel at how the Lebanese electorate is so ready to align its support in line with wherever the movement of genes takes them.

It has to be acknowledged that many of the political acts of inheritance were brought about after spates of assassinations that have marked Lebanese history since the 1950s. While the human angle to these tragedies is heartbreaking and must be condemned in the clearest terms, it should not serve as a justification for the persistence of a monarchical form of democracy. In fact, it can even be argued that a system that honours legacy over principle is the worst form of memorial for those who gave their lives for Lebanon.

Let us survey some of the leading illustrations of this democratic system of neo-feudalism:

Obviously, world famous Saad Al Hariri has inherited both the business and political leadership of the Lebanese version of Camelot. He controls the 14 March coalition, currently holding the majority of the outgoing parliament. As for the Phalangist party, also members of the 14 March coalition, political powers have been passed on vertically, horizontally and in every other possible direction. First cousins Sami Gmayel and Nadim Gmayel, both sons of former presidents, are running in Matein district and Beirut’s first district respectively. Not to mention that Sami’s father, Amine, is still the leader of the Phalangist party. After a long successful career as university students, supporters and friends, not to mention relatives, have unanimously agreed that the time for Sami and Nadim to bring change to Lebanon has come.

Without any doubt, the star of the 2009 elections is Nayla Tueini, the political child prodigy par excellence. Nayla, 26, is crowning a long and memorable 2-year career as a journalist by running the leading newspaper in Lebanon and by running to succeed her father in Beirut’s first district. If successful, she can look forward to sharing a cozy family experience in Parliament with fellow candidate and grandfather, Michel Al Mur (running in Matein district), and uncle Marwan Hamade, running in El Chouf district.

This political inheritance business is not limited to the forces of the March 14 majority, as it applies in equal measure throughout the list of candidates of the Opposition Alliance. Names such as Suleiman Frangieh (Zgharta), Omar Karami (Tripoli), Ahmad Karami (Tripoli), Raafat Ali Eid (Tripoli), Karim Al Rassi (Akkar), Prince Talal Ursulan (Aley) and Maarouf Saad (Saida) come to mind, all having inherited their political power and right to run from their families. As for Ghassan Rahbani (Matein), he is practicing the arts of asymmetrical political succession. For his authority does not stem from family members long steeped in the world of politics, but from the sound of music.

The list goes on and on. There are no guns or tanks on the streets that impose these hereditary choices on the people of Lebanon. And it is there that the heart of the deadlock lies. The people are voting, with a free will, for representatives on the basis of name and rights of succession.

However, it must also be said that the system in Lebanon has encouraged the perpetuation of such narrow choices. The electoral system, adopted in the Doha Agreement of 2008, served to limit the districts along narrower family and communal lines.

Any observer of the Lebanese political scene would agree that it seems rather utopian to foresee any change of the current status quo in the near future. In fact, any call for a white revolution à la Obama would most likely be labeled as unrealistic or naïve.

Yet history has proven that change will come as soon people will want change. Voices calling for independent choices in Lebanon have always existed. One could only hope that our cynicism will be swept away by 2013.

File this one under Diplomatic Pipedream: “As a result of the recent Israeli elections, the West will boycott the rejectionist, quasi-racist new government of Binyamin Netanyahu and cripple the economy with punitive sanctions – just as it did with Hamas in 2006.”

Some hope this is. The appointment of Israel’s new Prime Minister hardly raised an eyebrow in Washington, despite his stated distaste for the idea of a Palestinian state on Israel’s side of the River Jordan, his torpedoing of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s and his belief that the savage bombing campaigns in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza this year represented the worst of lily-livered liberalism. Even support from Avigdor Lieberman, a settler-dwelling immigrant from Moldova who would rather there be no Palestinians in Israel, and no state to house them in either, has yet to provoke a diplomatic question mark.

Compare that with Hamas’s victory in Palestine three years before, which was regarded as nothing short of genocide in the making. The free and fair elections – at the height of the neo-con drive for liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, remember – were instantly delegitimised, the new government ostracised and more than four million people subject to a repressive economic blockade that came on top of an already crippling occupation.

The treatment of Hamas from January 2006 is a study in Western hypocrisy. In elections described as “honest, fair, and safe” by monitor Jimmy Carter, Hamas won 76 of 132 available seats in the Palestinian Authority’s parliament. And while the ruling Fatah party immediately resigned, Hamas extended a conciliatory hand and immediately agreed to work with President Mahmoud Abbas in a unity government. But Condoleezza Rice, American Secretary of State, confirmed that the US wouldn’t work with the new authority, and with the EU cowering behind, all institutional aid to the PA was frozen on April 7th. Israel also proceeded to withhold all tax revenues from the Occupied Territories. The figure exceeded $1 billion.

The reasons for the boycott were laid down by the Quartet: Hamas must renounce violence, recognise Israel and abide by the terms of past agreements – even though a letter from new Prime Minister Ismail Haniya to George Bush expressing Hamas’s willingness to accept a Palestinian state on 1967 borders didn’t even merit a response.

Of course, the West makes no such demands of Israel, a state that uses overwhelming violence to enforce a 40-plus year occupation as well as devastate neighbouring countries, has continued to block Palestinian self-determination while colonising more of its land, and that has decisively ripped apart the Oslo Accords in 15 years of intransigence.

Hamas motives, it seems, were more of a problem than Israel’s actions.

In what became the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy, Gaza slipped into open civil war. When that spilled into rocket fire across the border, Israel responded with air raids that killed over 1,300 Palestinians, the overwhelming majority civilians.

As campaign poster, the January onslaught still proved insufficient for Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party, and Binyamin Netanyahu strode into power on the back of the biggest rightward shift in Israeli politics in a generation. And, true to form, the man who ran Israel between 1996 and 1998 and constantly rewrote the “bad” Oslo Accords to postpone withdrawals to less than 13 per cent of the agreed total and accelerate settlement activity – not least the massive Har Homa project in East Jerusalem – has already been setting out policies that seem to permanently postpone a Palestinian state.

At the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations in February, he openly stated he was putting “the surrender of land” to the Palestinian Authority “on hold”. He then added that it was “too early” to talk about a sovereign Palestinian Arab state and, in an interview with Haaretz, promised he would expand settlement activity in the West Bank.

In addition to his aggressive stance on Iran, it’s clear that he fulfils the Quartet’s anti-Hamas trifecta. He refuses to renounce violence, he refuses to accept a sovereign Palestine and refuses to abide by the commitments of Oslo – of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert.

We look forward to an instant freeze in the $8 billion aid package any day now. No?

Israel is small in size of course, which is why the intractable conflict between Palestinians and Jews drags so long. But it’s also small in the way things work, as if the sort of soundstages from which America has exported its slick culture haven’t quite been built up as smoothly in Israel, so that you can see the wires from which the angels fly, the cameramen behind the screen, and the clumsy movements of the actors on and off screen.

It is inevitable that a population of 7.3 million will feel compact, as if you might run into Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the street someday and not blink. In fact, one drives by Barak’s high-rise apartment in North Tel Aviv on main highways. Without tremendous pull and with a little bit of patience and luck, a high school senior can get an interview with President Shimon Peres.

But then there is the smallness of the way the government and political parties operate. The way the war, while launched in response to the ending of a cease-fire set up long before President Obama was an inevitability, wrapped itself up tidily just before his inauguration, down to the targeting of his swearing-in ceremony as the deadline to pull out the troops. The way two of the three major parties held political primaries marred by computer breakdowns (Kadima dodged this bullet, but they also were the last party in line). The way Arab-baiting politician Avigdor Lieberman, of Yisrael Beiteinu is treated with kid gloves by his political rivals in other parties, for fear that calling him out will cost them their share of the valuable Russian vote. And then there’s the whole Arab party issue.

It’s not quite as simple as saying the Jews banned the Arab parties from the next elections out of hatred and a desire to keep the enemy down. While the Arab parties stormed out of the Central Election Committee vote to ban them chanting that Israel is, “a fascist, racist state,” there was at least a quasi-reasonable impetus for the call from Yisrael Beiteinu and another right wing party: some Arab members of the Knesset have been known to not only be sympathetic to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other “enemies of the state”, but were reported to have been in contact with those enemies. They’re also reported to have incited their constituency against this and other war efforts, and to unite in protest that at times turns violent.

Of course, that reminds the reader of plenty of other minority movements in the modern world, most obviously the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.A. that at least paved the way to our current president. If the Arabs were to manage a similar rise to near equity and open opportunity, perhaps the one-state solution wouldn’t look so imposing, and Israel would gain huge lumps of political capital, and all of a sudden the brilliant success of Israel over the last 60 years would look broader, more welcoming, and exemplary.

Instead, the country can barely see past its nose, barely past the next threat or the short term needs, which leads to three-week military poundings, Netanyahu’s return, and the banning of the main minority parties. It’s not so much that any of these decisions are on their own completely indefensible (though the last one approaches it); it’s that the big picture, the broader world’s perception, and the collection of these leanings to the right, to fear, and to paranoia all combine to make the general situation in Israel an unpromising, unpleasant one.

And it’s not just Netanyahu, for that matter: Tzipi Livni still flits back and forth between pragmatic diplomacy and militaristic posturing, and Barak, while certainly capable as a Defense Minister, has no one’s trust for the big picture. There is no uniting outsider force that can take Israel to a better place, whether through peace or through some cohesive security policy.

The country seems untroubled by its increasing international isolation, an attitude perhaps born out of 60 years of making it work underneath improbable, impossible circumstances. If we’ve made it this far, goes the thinking, who the hell is going to stop us? And why change what we’re doing?

The smallness permeates the region, there’s no denying that. Hamas’s efforts to declare victory while still trumpeting their tragedy, the constant side-choosing between Egypt and Syria, and Hezbollah’s saber-rattling, all part and parcel to the region’s problems. But Israel relies on its democratic roots, its troubled past, and its supposed moral superiority to act in a strong and bold way to protect itself. Those grounds are challenged when they go as far as to bar the main representatives to the minorities in their own country.

Kernels of hope exist. For one, the ban was quickly overturned. A recent poll suggests that the majority of Israelis want peace. And then there’s everybody’s favorite deus ex machina, President Obama, who might just swoop in and impose peace on all of us. Considering the candidates for Israeli PM are approaching a “six in one basket, half dozen in the other” phase, this may be our only hope, the only change to believe in, and the only way to break us out of our smallness. Which leaves us fighting for our turn in line along with the rest of the world.

We in the media have, to use the obvious pun, plumbed new depths. While distillation of the news to fit the location or political inclination of the audience is hardly a new phenomenon, accelerated in the past 15 years by the rise of conservative talk radio and the infamous idiocy of Fox News, the recruitment of Joe the Plumber to report from Southern Israel during that country’s bombardment of Gaza offers a further refinement of the trend – world events presented through the filter of everyman ignorance. Bias in the media is no longer a matter of partisan affiliation but academic faculty.

Joe Wurzelbacher was, of course, the blue-collar middle American – regular, representative and conspicuously unintellectual – who confronted Barack Obama’s tax plans on his lawn during a campaign stop. With the tide of popular opinion swinging inexorably towards Obama, Wurzelbacher’s down-home, go-get-’em street corner democracy became a beacon of hope for the reactionary right; his name, if not always his bar-room-brawling face, was rarely out of the debates and stump speeches as the election date neared. Alongside the twitching imbecility of Sarah Palin, the wholesomeness of uninformed American insularity was the Republican Party’s sole remaining strategy.

It failed, and failed abysmally. But neither Palin nor Wurzelbacher appear to be any less in demand as a result. And after more run-outs on Fox – apparently Joe’s qualified to run the rule over the intricacies of the financial bailout and Obama’s CIA chief pick – the man was suddenly being flown by an outfit called Pajamas TV to Israel to cover the conflict from the town of Sderot.

Pajamas TV is a right-wing blog whose mission statement includes “exposing both bias and deception by the typically liberal Main Stream Media”. And as Roger Simon, one of their contributors, argued that as the American press – yes, the American press – was obviously an extension of Hamas, only Joe the (previously passportless) Plumber could redress this grievous imbalance for the fact hungry nation.

Leaving aside the issue that a news organisation can instruct a reporter as to the conclusions he must come to before he even arrives at his assignment, the use of someone who is neither well-versed nor remotely impartial to cover such a conflict underlines two new trends in news consumption:

Firstly, that people are less interested in being informed than they are in having existing prejudices confirmed and, secondly, that complex issues must now be boiled down to a simplistic bad-versus-good narrative by a guy you might want to sip a beer with – just so the nation can be saved from the grip of people who have a vague idea as to what they’re talking about.

Joe’s “reports” – and I confess I could only stomach two – revolve around speaking to everyday Israelis about how evil Palestinians are for not accepting their apartheid imprisonment.

He uses of the word “terrorist” every 12 seconds, avoids grammar and generally phrases questions so they induce gleeful nods from his interviewees, mostly militant rabbis and evicted Gaza settlers.

But it was off camera that he really made his mark, launching a tirade against a flock of Israeli journalists who, in his words, “should be ashamed of themselves” for reporting the mounting Palestinian civilian death toll.

He then went on to say that journalists shouldn’t even be in a war zone at all, lest they quibble over the nature of the onward march of goodness – an odd position for a newly-hired war correspondent to take.

Not that piercing truth was on the minds of the Pajamas TV web community, of course. When this columnist argued that the complexities of the Middle East deserve a more learned correspondent than someone who stated, in October, that “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel” – without actually being able to say why – the seething began. “Let me tell you,” said Michael Toledo, “that Joe the Plumber is the guy many of us have waited for. He speaks his mind, and he’s not afraid to go head to head with some of the nastiest reporters in the world… When is he running for Congress?”

And someone called Cynthia saw Joe as the moron’s messiah: “He is a guy whose opinion has not been shaped by being in New York City and Washington politics. He is more like one of us than anyone who writes or reads the New York Times.”

Is this really the news landscape of the future? Papers and networks outbidding each other in the drive to provide a version of events that not only their readers might want to hear, but in a monosyllable, smiley-studded, texting language they can be bothered to understand? Joe the Plumber might have already had his 15 minutes, but the trend of segmented, audience-centred news looks set to be around a little longer. In the internet age, “telling it like it is” really means “telling me what I want to hear”. And that is neither news nor journalism.

I was born outside your state capital of Springfield, Illinois to Jordanian parents who in turn were children of Palestinians in exile. I am an US educated attorney who has spent long hours and days following and studying American culture, history and politics. I have always been fascinated by the dynamics of American society and the promise of the American dream. Therefore, as I followed your campaign over the past year not only did I become deeply moved by your message, but also grasped the historical significance of your victory. Like many of my fellow Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters across the world I celebrated your victory with tears of joy and with screams of jubilation.

Of course our joy was not driven by any misconceptions that your victory would magically alter American policies toward the Middle East. These policies have, and will continue to be, blindly supportive of Israel’s hegemony and its barbaric abuse and erosion of the inalienable rights of Palestinians – which unfortunately has been on full display over the past fortnight.

Our joy was a celebration of the embodiment of our deepest and most noble belief, namely: that at in all matters of humanity, irrespective of time and place, a just cause will always emerge victorious and a suppressed people will always be redeemed. That is why we celebrate Gandhi for leading his people to overcome colonialism; that is why we celebrate Mandela for driving South Africans of all colors to bury apartheid; and that is why we celebrate you as you fulfill the dreams of your forefathers and lead African-Americans as they stake their rightful place in American society. As part of m personal celebration I went out and bought Obama T-Shirts for my family and myself. My T-shirt is of a profile of your face with the word “hope” written across the background, my two year old daughter has a T-shirt of a tree whose leaves are all peace signs and whose roots spell the name “Obama” and my pregnant wife’s simply states: “Mama Loves Obama”! That is certainly true.

However, more impressive than your victory was the method in which it was achieved. You confronted the worst in American society by always presenting its best attributes. You fought politics as usual with principled campaigning. You fought division through inclusion. You fought racism through multi-culturism. You fought negativity with positivity. You fought stagnation with change. You fought fear with hope. You always refused to succumb to those comfortable positions that made American politics mistrusted across the globe by always remaining true to your personal beliefs, your family values and your founding fathers’ most noble ideals.

Your victory, and the manner in which it achieved, inspired us to remain true to our beliefs, values and ideals in order to overcome our misery. We believe in our right to live in our land in peace; we value human life whatever creed, color, religion or race; we have faith that our Creator will judge us by our deeds. We therefore draw inspiration from you to continue to fight for our right to live in our land, while always valuing the sanctity of human life, and doing so in line with the most noble teachings of our faith: moderation and peace.

Like my T-Shirt reads, one must hope. We hope that the day will come when our just cause will follow others and when our people will overcome their struggle. We look forward to reaching our own mountain top to look over and see our children jumping rope rather than ducking bullets; when our parents watch their sons and daughters graduate school and not watch them carried away to be buried as victims of war crimes; when our elderly can live out their years in joy after earning the right to retire after a life fulfilled, not living in fear while their houses collapse over their heads as they lay there hopelessly waiting for food, medicine or relief that is unlikely to arrive.

While Israel unleashes its wrath of collective punishment on the desolate people of Gaza we hope that your Presidency will live up to its mantra and will stand for change. We hope that you will break your silence to speak against the unjust and inhumane persecution of Palestinians. As you taught us, we can only hope. We hope that with your support we can change the world…. YES WE CAN.

I admired that honest answer as it showed that he may have understood the mentality of many of his Palestinian occupied subjects. He was elected on the basis of going ahead with the peace process and I always thought that if he really understood the Palestinian mentality he would do his utmost to prevent young people like from joining terrorist organizations.

Alas, he didn’t achieve peace back then, nor do his actions now show that he really understood the Palestinian mind. Being myself a Palestinian and knowing how many of my people think, I dare put myself in the shoes of an Israeli citizen and try to reach any new conclusions.

Being Israeli I would first try to analyze the situation and try to understand what makes my neighbors or enemies act the way they act. Is it plain anti-Semitism, as I have been taught in school and by the media? But why should anyone hate me for being a peaceful and, most probably, a secular Jew? I would surely ponder that question…

I would look at my personal history: I would most likely be of foreign origin. Maybe my parents came from Poland, or anywhere in Eastern Europe, and became citizens the moment they landed at the airport. My parents would have suffered because of Anti-Semitism that nevertheless had nothing to do with my fellow Palestinian Semites.

At the same time, I would realize that my neighbors have roots that go back hundreds of years in Palestine. The houses where they were born were built hundreds or years ago and housed generations of families and friends and loved ones, only to be vacated at the creation of the state of Israel.

But the deed has been done… my Jewish family came and the Palestinian one was ousted. Now what?

How can we deal with the situation? It looks simple at first. We can fight over the same house till one of us leaves or dies. But what if the other side doesn’t leave, considering its attachment to its roots? And what if I don’t want to leave nor want to kill my neighbor?

If both sides are going to be stuck with each other, then we should find a way to live together here, and in fact help each other in this small precious land. I would be grateful because this land and its people hosted me after the massacres in Europe and the Palestinian will be happy to live in peace in his father’s and mother’s land. Yet to achieve this utopia we should share equally our benefits and rights. There could be no double standards.

If I were an Israeli I would definitely look for a way to make the Palestinians feel at home in this land and look forward to a shared future. Otherwise why would they agree to accommodate me in this tiny piece of land? My benefit as an Israeli would be to have peace and move toward stability and more prosperity.

Alas, despite those long-ago hopes we had for Ehud Barak, what is going on is completely the opposite. The Palestinians have a grimmer and darker future. They have a corrupt authority, bleak political forecast,s no peace, no equal rights – in fact, they have no rights at all but for the right to die.

Why would anyone want to live in peace in that kind of situation? What’s in it for them? Many Arabs today are citizens of Israel, and they still haven’t earned equal status, nor will they ever, it seems. The situation in the occupied territories and especially Gaza is, meanwhile, desperate.

Anyway, I am not Israeli. My roots are Palestinian. My father’s house in Jerusalem was his father’s house and his grandfather’s house before him. It was built 800 years ago and has been continuously inhabited since then.

Knowing what I know, I see how Palestinians have been denied their state and their rights and their own history and culture. We have two ways to go… either we forget we are Palestinians, or try to free Palestine. Peaceful means have so far have led to nothing. What do we do?

Ehud Barak already answered that question ten years ago. He said he would be a so called terrorist – a freedom fighter- to us.

Yet in the years that have gone by, he surely missed the opportunity to work with these freedom fighters toward a shared peace. Even now, he is making sure that for generations to come, the young children of Palestine will remember these days and these atrocities and wonder about the reality of peace initiatives and the reality of who is anti-human rights and who is anti-Semitic.