Israel’s struggle for peace is a sincere one. In fact, Israel desires to live at peace not only with its neighbours, but also and especially with its own Palestinian population, and with Palestinians whose lands its military occupies by force. Israel’s desire for peace is not only rhetorical but also substantive and deeply psychological. The only thing Israel has asked for, and continues to ask for in order to end the state of war with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours, is that all recognise its right to be a racist state that discriminates by law against Palestinians and other Arabs and grants differential legal rights and privileges to its own Jewish citizens and to all other Jews anywhere. Read more about Israel's right to be racist 

At first glance, indeed, the Mecca Agreement may seem a great wonder, considering what we published here two months ago. We divided - and still divide - the Middle East into two axes. One included the US, Saudia Arabia and Fatah, and the other included Iran, Syria and Hamas. Under these circumstances, how was agreement possible? The answer lies in a temporary conjunction of interests between Saudi Arabia and Iran. When we unpeel a few layers, however, the dovish feathers fall away: the Mecca Agreement is a mere time-out - not the basis for a new beginning. Read more about The Mecca Charity Show 

On March 2, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama gave a speech that proved that when it came to supporting Israel he is “as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani” in the words of one Israeli journalist. Obama blamed Palestinians for the failure of peace efforts and uttered no criticism of Israeli policies. Yet once upon a time Obama supported Palestinian rights and an even-handed US approach to solving the conflict. EI co-founder Ali Abunimah who has met the candidate half a dozen times over a decade analyzes the speech and traces Obama’s path into the hardline pro-Israel camp. Read more about How Barack Obama learned to love Israel 

When I was a child, a popular argument in favor of the Israeli “liberation,” i.e., occupation, of the Palestinian territories was its being a blessing for the Palestinians themselves. “When we took it over,” I was told at school, “there were just a couple of cars in the entire West Bank. And look how many they have now!” Indeed, in the first decades of the Israeli occupation, the Palestinian standard of living was on the rise — not because of Israeli investments (Israel never invested a cent in Palestinian welfare or infrastructure), but mainly because Israel exploited the Palestinians as a cheap labor force, and even a cheap labor force gets paid. Read more about How to Live with Hunger 

The scene: a military checkpoint deep in Palestinian territory in the West Bank. A tall, thin elderly man, walking stick in hand, makes a detour past the line of Palestinians, many of them young men, waiting obediently behind concrete barriers for permission from an Israeli soldier to leave one Palestinian area, the city of Nablus, to enter another Palestinian area, the neighbouring village of Huwara. The long queue is moving slowly, the soldier taking his time to check each person’s papers. The old man heads off purposefully down a parallel but empty lane reserved for vehicle inspections. A young soldier controlling the human traffic spots him and orders him back in line. The old man stops, fixes the soldier with a stare and refuses. Read more about Apartheid looks like this 

Journalist Gideon Levy wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz: “From now on, the [Israeli] Supreme Court will act without Aharon Barak. It will, however, presumably continue to act within his legacy, which has authorized nearly all injustices in the territories. Barak, meanwhile, will continue to be depicted in Israel and the world as a pursuer of justice.” The Israeli High Court of Justice under the presidency of Professor Barak has impressed many observers as being many things: progressive, daring, precedent setting. However, the actual results of the Barak Court offer little in the way of comparison to a Court like the Warren Court in the United States. Read more about Reinforcing the Occupation: Israel's High Court 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet today with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Ostensibly, they are to talk of a “political horizon” in order for Abbas to relay to the Palestinian people a “vision” of what could be. This now appears to be little more than a hallucination put out for public consumption. Borders, Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees cannot be expected to highlight the agenda. Consequently, if these three issues are not central to discussions, this is not a political horizon but a cliff for Palestinians. A horizon, properly viewed, simply cannot omit these three central concerns. Read more about Core issues absent from Rice's peace rhetoric agenda 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one area where liberals and neo-conservatives in America find common ground. From Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton all the way to George Bush and Condoleezza Rice one and all are united in supporting Israel’s assault on the Palestinian people and their land. The criticism of Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is a case in point. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outdid herself by issuing a statement that: “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression.” Wrong to suggest? Here is something right to suggest: Madam Speaker, it is time for you to visit Gaza. Read more about It's Time to Visit Gaza