“Don’t get me wrong: The West Bank is still ragged, and Gaza is a disaster. Fayyad will be lucky to meet his two-year timetable for creating effective institutions. If he can’t deliver, the Israelis shouldn’t go forward. But frankly, his nation-building program is the only ray of light I can see in the Palestinian morass, and it deserves American support.”

After watching over 45 minutes of accusations and hearsay on the influence of the lobby, the documentary calmly ends with narrator Peter Osborne saying:

“In making this program we haven’t found anything even faintly resembling a conspiracy but we have found a worrying lack of transparency. The influence of the pro-Israel lobby continues to be felt.”

Speaking as a journalist, it’s pretty irresponsible to accuse an organization or an institution of any wrongdoing and only reconcile those concerns in the closing paragraph.

Among the Israelis interviewed, Prof. Avi Shlaim provides his input. For those of you who don’t know, Shlaim is a leading critic of Israel as a New Historian and he lives in England.

Aside from being a cheap shot on Israel, the documentary also includes thinly veiled antisemitism with its frequent allusions to financing and that the lobby “gave” certain politicians money, without specifying the funds are campaign contributions and don’t go towards the politicians’ personal bank account. The documentary characterizes the Israel lobby as puppeteers, an old visual used to condemn the Jews for generations. The documentary opens and closes with the waving of a British flag that has a Jewish star superimposed on top. Not too subtle.

Criticizing the documentary, David Cesarani writes:

“Finally, Oborne and Jones dispute whether British and Israeli foreign policy interests should go in step. They suggest that the amity is false and based on the money power of the hidden lobby or the result of kowtowing to America, which is pretty much the same thing in their world. Oborne never pauses to explore whether Israeli friendship might be a strategic asset at a time when the UK and Israel face the same threats in the Middle East.

Throughout this masquerade Oborne presents just one side of a complicated picture. This is nowhere more so than in the depiction of the pro-Israel lobby as a controlling force in British Jewish life. In fact, the Jews in this country are bitterly divided over Israel. Nor do they agree about Britain’s foreign policy. Every point of view is vented, none is suppressed.”

The pro-Israel lobby deserves criticism for many things. Some of those criticisms are indicative of all lobbies (ie. the influence of money) while others only apply to the Israel lobby (ie.  demanding the withdrawal of an expected White House appointment from earlier this year). Instead of providing an honest criticism of the Israeli lobby, this documentary characterizes regular lobbying activities as solely applicable to the Israel lobby and fails to provide any balance whatsoever.

The row between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government and the Obama Administration flared up again today, as the Israeli government approved a plan to build 900 homes in Gilo, a disputed Jewish settlement outside Jerusalem on the Palestinian side of the Green Line. Increased settlements in Gilo serve two functions detrimental to the peace process- increased settlement activity that both the United States and Palestinian officials condemn and by establishing a ring of Jewish homes around Jerusalem to effectively prevent the division of the holy city in a future peace agreement.

U.S. officials chastised the approved settlement blocs, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs releasing a statement:

“At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations… these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations….”

“The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes.”

Similarly, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said:

“We understand the Israeli point of view about Jerusalem but we think all sides right now should refrain from these actions. We’re calling on both parties to refrain from action and from rhetoric that would impede this process. It’s a challenging time and we need to focus on what’s important.”

However, representatives of the Netanyahu government did not seem concerned in interviews with Israeli publication Yedioth Ahronot. Officials noted that Netanyahu was not involved in the decision making process and expressed confidence the incident would be forgotten in the coming weeks.

“The Americans know very well that the Israeli agreement to freeze the construction does not include Jerusalem…”

“The Americans are well aware of the prime minister’s stand on the matter, and therefore it would be a mistake to refer to the Americans’ statements as a crisis. There are things that are not seen by everyone.”

The new apartments will have 4-5 bedrooms in an effort to lure wealthy Israelis to settle the area.

Photo from Ha’aretz.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly expressed support for a Palestinian state through negotiations, and not unilateral declarations. He said:

“We support the creation of a Palestinian state that is contiguous… the best way to achieve that is negotiation between two parties…

“We are convinced that has to be achieved through negotiations between two parties. We support a Palestinian state that arrives as a result of negotiations between two parties.”

In a statement, the State Department reaffirmed the sentiment, stating:

“It is our strong belief and conviction that the best means to achieve the common goal of a contiguous and viable Palestine is through negotiations between the parties‬. ”

Ghassen Khatib, in an article for bitterlemons, blames the United States inability to forge a viable peace process for the resignation of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and he urges the U.S. administration to recognize an independent Palestinian state. As an example for the international community to recognize a unilateral declaration of independence, Khatib cites the creation of Israel. He writes:

“A unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood, recognized and encouraged by the international community, could promote stability, end hostility and create a better atmosphere for these two states to negotiate the remaining aspects of their relations, such as solving the refugee issue and sorting out security arrangements and other aspects of bilateral relations. This would include the presence of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian state and their illegal use of sovereign Palestinian resources, such as land and water.”

Meanwhile, some ministers in the Israeli government threatened to annex areas of the West Bank in the event of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, calls that could lead to a major party leaving the coalition government. Reportedly, Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said:

“The first step: Israel will announce the annexation of all West Bank settlements and [Area C] zones to Israel, which Israel has a religious right to annex. This must be clear because Israel should respond promptly to any unilateral step by the Palestinians.”

Israeli Trade Minister Ben Eliezer, a member of the Labor party, rejected any calls for annexation and threatened his party would leave the Likud-led coalition, thereby forcing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to forge an alliance with another party or potentially face a premature electoin. Eliezer also dismissed the veracity of either claim, that Israel would annex land and the Palestinians would unilaterally declare independence. He said:

“The Labor party cannot continue to sit in this government if it decides to annex settlement… In my opinion this whole thing about annexation is just words. I think the Palestinian threat also is just words. A ping-pong of declarations will get us nowhere, the only way forward is to bring the sides together for negotiations.”

Palestinian leaders are actively lobbying countries for their support on the proposal and reports indicate that a measure could reach the floor of the United Nations. Russia and Latin American countries seem to be the main targets for support, although Palestinian officials have had discussions with European officials.

This initiative differs from the proposals of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad who preaches for the development of state institutions in the territories. Under his proposal, the Palestinians would establish the institutions that would naturally and eventually turn the West Bank and Gaza Strip into an independent state from Israel.

This distinction between declaring statehood and developing statehood is extremely important and the future of a future Palestinian state could hinge on which strategy is taken.

Rosenthal comes from the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and the Chicago Foundation for Women.

According to a new report, 75-percent of boys and 25-percent of elementary age girls consume alcohol during the week.  Additional data shows that alcohol-related car accidents account for 2-percent of the total and the alcoholism rate is .5 percent (compared to 4-percent in Russia and 1.5-percent in the United States).

The author of the alert urges schools to take a more proactive educational approach to the matter and the government to enforce existing regulations on the issue. The author writes:

“The paucity of selling points along with the supervision that would ensure that only adults above 18 will be allowed to purchase alcohol will prevent the unbearable ease with which any child today can get vodka for 30 or 40 shekels at the kiosk.”

(Between you and me, those kids are overpaying.)

Some Israelis speculate on the causes of the increased prevalence of alcohol over the last two decades. I have not seen any studies that suggest the reason, nor do I necessarily agree with these speculations, but some Israelis attribute the increase in alcoholism in Israel to the influx of Russian immigrants into the country during the early 1990s. These Israelis contend that the aliyah brought many cultural aspects previously foreign to Israel, including an affinity for booze.

In Russia the alcohol epidemic is worse than in Israel, with the average person drinking 40 bottles of vodka per year. Just take into account men, and the number skyrockets to 70 bottles annually.

I don’t even think many frat guys could keep up with those figures.

The Washington Post’s “On Faith” series included today two articles written on the “despair” of Israelis and Palestinians. Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, write:

“Yet what has been the reaction to Israel’s defense of itself against Hamas whose founding Charter cites the genocidal Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a blueprint for wiping the Jewish state from the map? Not sympathy for Israeli families living in hamlets and towns rendered unlivable by incessant bombardment. Not understanding for the survival imperative of defeating terrorism. Not praise for a military operation that, among other things, freed Fatah prisoners from probable execution in Hamas’ torture chambers. Instead, Israel suffers the fast-tracking by the United Nations of the so-called Goldstone Commission Report whose precooked conclusions condemn the Jewish state for “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes” while intentionally turning a blind eye to Hamas’ genocidal intent against Israel and its You Tube boasts of deploying women and children civilians as “human shields.” To add injury to insult, the UN and the anti-Israel chorus of NGOs remain mum as Hamas–with Iran’s help–sets the stage for the next conflict by rearming with missiles that can now easily reach Tel Aviv.”

The authors then unequivocally reject the notion that Israel would, in any way, hedge its security on negotiations, stating:

“Until Palestinians teach their children to respect the permanent and legitimate presence of their Jewish neighbors, no bullying from UN-approved kangaroo courts or arm twisting from “friends of peace” can create the facts on the ground for Israel’s (not so) silent majority to make any more of those one-sided “painful concessions for peace.”"

Conversely, Dr. Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, writes:

“For them, the 16-year era of peace talks has meant 16 years of further occupation, settlement building and land confiscation, bitter disappointment and denial of basic human and national rights. In addition to Israel and the international community, ordinary Palestinians also blame their own leaderships — both Fatah and Hamas — for not reuniting after the violent split in 2007, and blame all parties for the ongoing human catastrophe caused by the siege of Gaza.

Under such circumstances, it should be readily understandable that the concept of a viable peace process now seems like a sick joke to so many Palestinians.

This is the political context in which the Palestinian leadership has to operate: an exceedingly skeptical public and international actors that don’t seem to comprehend the limitations of Palestinian patience.”

These comments, while nothing new, merely represent another instance where differing Israeli and Palestinian narratives color the peace process and place additional burdens on the possibility of any government to resolve the conflict.

A White House statement read:

“The president reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel’s security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues… The president and prime minister also discussed Iran and how to move forward on Middle East peace.”

Netanyahu rejected the notion of talks being anything but “positive,” stating that he remains committed to a renewal of the peace negotiations. He described contrary media reports as “nonsense” and said:

“[the meeting] dealt with an array of important issues including the joint effort to advance the peace process… I think the visit will prove to be very important.”

Amidst speculation that the administration changed its policy on Israeli settlements, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs clarified, once more, President Obama’s stance. Previously and currently, the White House opposed any settlement activity, including natural growth. Gibbs said:

“The policy of the United States government for many decades has been no more settlements. That’s not something that is new (with) this administration.”

Meanwhile White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel gave a speech to the Jewish Federation of North America’s annual general assembly where he emphasized the bond between the United States and Israel, saying the Palestinians must “come to the table” by rejecting terror and recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Notable moments include:

Abbas’ threatened resignation may actually serve to resolve the same issues that originally pushed him into retirement- the crumbling of the peace process. In response to Abbas’ threat, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu used the strongest language yet on curbing settlement activity and resuming negotations with the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu said:

“No Israeli government has been so willing to restrain settlement activity as part of an effort to relaunch peace talks…let us seize the moment, let us relaunch peace talks immediately…”

“My goal is not negotiations for the sake of negotiations. My goal is to achieve a permanent peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians - and soon. “

Abbas even fielded a phone call from Kadima leader and former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, an event that marks the first extremely high-level, unchaperoned talks between the two sides in a long time.

One of the biggest concerns for Palestinians and the rest of the world alike is the potential political vacuum caused by Abbas’ resignation. The entire Palestinian Authority could come crashing down with senior officials taking Abbas’ lead and leaving the government.

Abbas’ spokesman said:

“The current political vacuum which resulted from the failure of the peace process will soon be filled with violence leading to a serious shake up in the security of the whole region…”

“To avoid this, the US administration should immediately start exerting pressure on the government of Israel and make them comply with their share of the peace process.”

The New York Times ran an in-depth article today that cites multiple Palestinian sources that fear other leaders will follow suit and resign from the government. Long-time Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said:

“I think he is realizing that he came all this way with the peace process in order to create a Palestinian state, but he sees no state coming,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, said in an interview. “So he really doesn’t think there is a need to be president or to have an Authority. This is not about who is going to replace him. This is about our leaving our posts. You think anybody will stay after he leaves?”

Regardless of all the talk from Israel on curbing settlements and the fear within the Palestinian Authority of a leadership vacuum, Abbas still criticized Israel for failing to negotiate. Abbas said:

“”It appears they do not want peace, and they don’t want to stop settlement, and they don’t want the vision of two-states, so I don’t know what they want.”

He said that the former Israeli government, under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, actually almost led to a viable peace process. He said:

“We sat and negotiated with the Israelis over drawing borders and we negotiated these borders with Olmert and Livni…”

“We accepted international legitimacy and we accepted the international law and we accepted the roadmap and we offered all commitments and we honored all the commitments that came in the roadmap and achieved a lot in terms of security and economic stability.”