Throughout April, Israel continued its defiance of the international community with settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land. President Barack Obama has been forced into an embarrassing acquiescence pushing instead for another round of diplomacy amid chatter of an autumn summit. Tensions rose above normal levels in the region after Israel and the US accused Syria of delivering advanced missiles to Lebanon's Hizbullah.  Paradoxically, Obama's high-profile nuclear summit was boycotted by Israel. Other big stories included that of the Israeli journalist, Anat Kam, who blew the whistle on the military assassination of Palestinians in the West Bank and the military order to expel thousands of Palestinian from the territory. MEMO also offers in this edition a reading of the US media coverage.

Settlement expansion and the peace process

Last month saw the fiasco in which Israel announced its approval for the building of 1,600 new units in an ultra-orthodox settlement in east Jerusalem during a visit by US vice president Joe Biden in total defiance of US demands for a freeze in construction. US demands were in line with Palestinians who refused to return to direct talks without a full freeze.

Toward the beginning of the month, the US endeavoured to broker a four month freeze in east Jerusalem by encouraging Palestinians to enter into direct peace talks with Israel. Washington believed this would be enough to restart talks for the first time since the war on Gaza. A number of senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman insisted publicly that they would not halt the illegal expansion. The latter claimed that making further concessions was pointlessness and that Israel could convince the US of the "completely unreasonable" nature of its demand.

The link between finding a solution to the conflict in the Middle East and US security was again emphasized. Jim Jones, leader of the US national security agency asserted that progress toward peace would help the US curb Iranian nuclear ambitions. However, key US figures are beginning to doubt whether the conflict is capable of a negotiated settlement. Meanwhile Abbas's frustrations showed through when he urged Obama to impose a solution.  Israel is vehemently opposed to the suggestion of an imposed peace agreement.

At the end of the month, the Arab League gave its blessing to the resumption of indirect talks between the Palestinians and Israel.

US - European autumn peace initiative

The Washington Post and the Times ran stories this month positing that the Obama administration was due to unveil a new Middle East Peace plan for the autumn which would closely adhere to the Camp David proposals of 2000. This proposed course of action comes in the wake of a belated US realization that its unquestioning support for Israel and the continuation of the conflict provides explosive ammunition to its enemies and endangers both its interests abroad and the lives of its soldiers.

With this initiative, Obama appears to be attempting to form an international pressure network to drive the Middle East agenda and offset the problems and opposition he faces at home. He has found a willing partner in the French premiere Sarkozy, however it is doubtful he has the clout to lead on this issue and it is unclear whether Obama will be able to rely on other traditional European allies such as Britain and Germany.

Despite offering confidence building gestures, Israel's defiance is a huge blow to US credibility and their ability to influence progress in the region. In addition, it will no doubt put further strain on an already strained relationship.

Military Order 1650; the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing continues

Two new military orders recently issued by the Israeli army which purportedly relate to the 'prevention of infiltration' and 'security provisions' mean that both Palestinians and foreigners living in the West Bank (WB) could be deemed 'infiltrators', in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and deported within 72 hours or prosecuted and jailed for 7 years if they are found without the 'correct' permits. Israel effectively controls the Palestinian population register and since 2000 have frozen applications for renewal of visitors permits or applications for permanent status in the occupied territories. Because of this, many live in the WB without formal status and have now been made vulnerable.

The orders have been widely condemned as symbolic of an Apartheid State and an affront to the principles of human rights. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a stark warning saying they could lead to a sharp escalation in Israeli-Palestinian tensions and in the region as a whole and that they raised serious concerns for Russia. Concerns in Jordan, which has historically been a haven for expelled Palestinians, lead to the country's leaders holding meetings in preparation for the worst. The orders are in tune with the ultra-right wing faction within Israel's governing coalition, which includes its Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state on any part of historic Palestine and advocate turning Jordan into a Palestinian state.

Obama's nuclear summit

At this month's 47-nation Washington Summit on nuclear security, Barack Obama called on the world "not simply to talk, but to act" to limit and secure stockpiles of nuclear material against its spread to militant groups and nuclear terrorists. In addition, the summit called for the ratification of UN conventions for international standards of nuclear security. There were pledges for additional funding for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which will play and enhanced role in monitoring and reinforcing global security standards. This was in tandem with earlier assertions by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that "All nations must recognize that the non-proliferation regime cannot survive if violators are allowed to act with impunity."

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pulled out of the summit at the last minute after learning that his country would likely face pressure over their large, secret and controversial atomic arsenal from countries who planned to raise the issue and call on them to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to open their facilities in Dimona to international inspection. Israel refuses to discuss the issue hiding behind a facade of "nuclear ambiguity."  Israel constantly highlights the danger from Iran's peaceful civilian nuclear power activities while it is estimated to have between 150 and 200 atomic bombs. There is an IAEA Resolution calling for Israel to sign the NPT and to open its borders to international inspection.

Whistleblower Anat Kam; the trail of Israeli assassinations extends

Israeli journalist Anat Kam was put on trial in April charged with treason and espionage for allegedly copying classified military documents during her military service. The documents suggest the Israel's army chief, General Gabi Ashkenazi, breached high court orders on West Bank assassinations and that the military has been assassinating Palestinian militants in contravention of rulings which states that efforts must be first made to apprehend suspects.  Kam could face up to 15 years in prison for passing 700 top secret files to journalist Uri Blau of Ha'aretz newspaper even though, according to the newspaper's editor, all articles said to have relied on Kam's information were approved for publication by IDF censors.
Israel's internal intelligence agency, Shin Bet, claims Kam's actions endangered national security - a claim her lawyers refute. A court-imposed gagging order proposed by the state and the defense prevented media coverage of the arrest and charges which were challenged by Haaretz and Israel's Channel 10 two days before Kam's trial was due to start. The journalist Uri Blau left Israel and is now in London out of fear he could be arrested, however, Ha'aretz is defiant claiming it has a right to publish whatever public interest demand in a democracy.

The US perspective - Déjà vu all over again

The New York Times throws up some gems every now and again. April's belongs undoubtedly to Kai Bird, another Pulitzer Prize-winner writing for the newspaper (where do they get them all?). In "Who lives in Sheikh Jarrah?" Mr. Bird explored the current stand-off over settlements in East Jerusalem. He wrote from an unusual perspective, having lived in Jerusalem as a child at the end of the fifties, when his father was based there as an American diplomat.

Tackling this thorny issue, Bird mentioned the unmentionable: that East Jerusalem "exudes the palpable feel of a city occupied by a foreign power". Which, of course, "it is, to an extent"; he then goes on to mention that "although much of the world doesn't recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to halt the construction of new housing units for Jewish Israelis in the Arab neighbourhoods" because, in Netanyahu's Zionist worldview,  "Jerusalem is not a settlement". Such denial of fundamental issues is one reason why peace talks - direct or "proximity" with such a person aren't going anywhere.

The eponymous Sheikh Jarrah of Bird's article is the East Jerusalem suburb from which the Israeli government has been evicting Palestinian resident despite protests by "hundreds, sometimes thousands, of Israelis and Palestinians". Those evicted are, Bird reminds us, the same Palestinians who "were originally expelled in 1948 from their homes in the West Jerusalem neighbourhood of Talbieh". Netanyahu's right-wing government is using a ruling of the Israeli courts from 1967, which said that the houses lived in by these Palestinians since 1948 "are actually legally owned by Jewish Israelis, who have claims going back from before Israel's founding".

And this is where Kai Bird's article gets interesting: "If Jewish Israelis can claim property in East Jerusalem based on land deeds that predate 1948, why can't Palestinians with similar deeds reclaim their homes in West Jerusalem?" That's the sort of question that is met with a deafening silence by Israel's apologists, because there is no reasonable explanation.

At a time when the debate about Israel's identity is stirring, Bird believes that what we are seeing in East Jerusalem is the core of the issue: "If Israel wishes to remain largely Jewish and democratic, then it must soon withdraw from all of the occupied territories and negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital." If not, he adds, then Israel has to let those Palestinians with claims on property from which they were expelled in 1948 and 1967 "go home again". The right to return has been mentioned as a serious debating point, in the New York Times. Now that's interesting.

The democracy referred to by Kai Bird needs "American endorsement", according to Yossi Alpher, which suggests that the Israelis will be amenable to US views on the peace process. However, Mr. Alpher calls Netanyahu's government "a right-religious-settler-Russian coalition pushing a reactionary agenda" which "perceives an international onslaught against its bastions in East Jerusalem and the West Bank" and "has resolved never to permit a repeat of the withdrawal from Gaza. Hence it is attacking its critics and beefing up its grip on the instruments of power. And this reaction further amplifies Israel's international isolation, creating a vicious circle". In other words, the Israeli government feels that it not only can, but must, tell the US administration of Barack Obama where to go with its "preconditions" for a resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. Which is exactly what Israel did, of course, timing the announcement to coincide with the arrival of the US vice-president on an official visit.

It would be unusual to see such language being used to describe the Israeli government in any of the British media. Indeed, according to the Guardian, comedian Frankie Boyle "has accused the BBC Trust of cowardly behaviour after it apologised for a joke in which he compared Palestine to a cake being 'punched to pieces by a very angry Jew'." Apparently, it was his use of the word "Jew" that caused the BBC to apologise after it received a complaint that it was "anti-Semitic". Well done, the Guardian, though, for not only covering the story but publishing the joke in full. In her review of Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England by Anthony Julius, Hilary Wise reminds us that the "depressingly familiar accusation" of "anti-Semitism" is used frequently by "Zionist supporters of Israel" who "refuse to engage with the real arguments and retreat behind this poisonous slur".

But let's get back to the USA. In his op-ed piece "When your best friend gets angry", Martin Indyk asked rhetorically, "How do you know when there's a real crisis in U.S.-Israel relations?" before answering his own question: "It's when the president of the United States convenes a nuclear security summit to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the Israeli prime minister declines the invitation." The twice ex-US ambassador to Israel points out that "Netanyahu explained that his presence at the summit would have prompted some leaders to focus attention on Israel's nuclear programme". In doing so both Mr. Indyk and Benjamin Netanyahu have "outed" Israel's possession of a "nuclear programme", something about which the Zionist state has always been non-committal. Of course, the thrust of the article is not a discussion of the rights and wrongs of Israel's nuclear capabilities - this is the only mention - but the struggle to make sure that Iran cannot join Israel in the nuclear club. Hypocrisy in action, again.

That's not a quality unique to the Israeli government and its supporters, though. The NYT also published an article by Tim Sebastian, a one-time BBC regular, on the "Doha Debates", in which senior Hamas and Fatah officials faced each other in front of an Arab audience and came up with "absolutely nothing". At a time when the Palestinian people are crying out for some degree of unity, this was, again, a time to play the blame game, and there was, claims Sebastian, "always someone else to blame", including Israel, of course, Egypt - ditto - the USA and Europe. When, amongst the "buzzwords and phrases" that "came and went" the cry went up, "we're all brothers" Tim Sebastian felt that it was "churlish to mention the 1,400 or so Palestinians [Hamas and Fatah] had killed and the hundreds jailed, tortured and abused." Yet more statistics to add to the roll-call of shame. The Palestinian people were the "major absentee... barely mentioned by anyone" who are all too often reduced to the status of statistics to be trotted out in debates. The human cost of the occupation of Palestine and the siege of Gaza is hidden by the politics and "too many egos and too much international posturing that does little for the Palestinian people - apparently so dear to all our hearts". The result is articles such as one in the NYT quoted by Sebastian in which "mention of Israel" is "almost completely absent". Written by "the well-meaning Irish foreign minister Micheál Martin," he was clear "about how unacceptable the Gaza siege was, but omitted to mention how it got there...leaving the uninitiated to conclude that the siege had probably happened by itself". It is the sort of article that the editorial team at the New York Times probably feels obliged to include in order to demonstrate their liberal credentials without upsetting the Israel lobby in the US and maintaining "balance" in the process. The good news is that the balance is tilting very much in favour of justice and the Palestinians; cue more sabre-rattling and talk of war against Syria, Lebanon and Iran to make sure that Israel maintains its military superiority in the Middle East. Balance is not wanted in that context and so, to paraphrase Woody Allen, we have a sense of déjà vu all over again.