Israel: the generals’ grand design
Sharon’s present strategy of fighting the Palestinians to the last and imposing a new regional order follows the long-term vision of Israel’s political generals. For them, the failure of the Oslo peace process was not just inevitable, but a goal.

In conventional political discourse, Israel’s recent attacks on Palestinian civilians, villages, and governmental institutions are described as “retaliatory acts”. They are justified as a “response” to the latest wave of terror attacks on Israeli civilians. In fact, these “retaliatory measures” are part of a systematic assault on the Palestinian Authority that was carefully prepared long before the current “war on terrorism.” As far back as October 2000, at the outset of the Palestinian uprising and before the terror attacks had started, military circles in Israel had prepared detailed operative plans to topple Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

In a statement published in Israel’s major newspaper, Ha’aretz, on 18 October 2001, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared, “Oslo [the peace accord] is not continuing; there won’t be Oslo; Oslo is over.” Oslo is now widely considered in Israel to be “an historical mistake.” Since March of 2001, the Israeli media has openly discussed plans to re-establish full military control of the territories.
[read more]

-----------

Was Arafat the Problem?

David Horowitz, editor of the Jerusalem Report, recently said on the NPR show To the Point that Barak offered "basically all the territory the Palestinians were purporting to seek." This is a widely repeated claim— that Israel offered something like the "pre-1967 borders" that had long been the mantra of Palestinians who favored a two-state solution. But for Palestinians to get all the territory that had been under Arab control before the war of 1967 would mean getting a) all of what we now think of as the West Bank; b) all of East Jerusalem (which some consider part of the West Bank); and c) all of the walled "Old City" that lies between East and West Jerusalem. Barak never offered any of those things—not at Camp David, not at Taba.
[read more]

----------

Missing in action
New research suggests that television news fails to inform young people about what's going on in the Occupied Territories, or why.

We asked all of these people what came to their mind when they heard the words "Israeli/Palestinian conflict" and what its source was. A small number of people had direct experience (two individuals) and listed accounts from relatives as what had come to their minds. But most (82%) listed TV news as their source and to a lesser extent newspapers were also named. The replies showed that they had absorbed the "main" message of the news, of conflict, violence and tragedy.

But the research also showed that many people had little understanding of the reasons for the conflict and its origins. It was apparent that this lack of understanding (and indeed misunderstanding) was compounded by the news reports. Explanations were rarely given on the news and when they were, journalists often spoke obliquely, almost in a form of shorthand. For example, in a news bulletin that featured the progress of peace talks, an ITN journalist made a series of very brief comments on the issues which underpinned the conflict: "The basic raw disagreements remain - the future, for example, of this city Jerusalem, the future of Jewish settlements and the returning refugees. For all that, together with the anger and bitterness felt out in the West Bank, then I think it's clear this crisis is not about to abate."
[read more]