Israel

The first story of the exit polls here in Israel seems to be the success of Yair Lapid, the charismatic and populist TV man, who looks set to win 19 seats. Lapid has appealed to a large swathe of the disgruntled secular middle classes, talking a lot about social issues, but not a lot about the peace process. It looks like it still could be good news for Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister. He polled at 31, which is weaker than last week's polls suggested. But I'm told it should be quite easy - though of course this all early speculation - for him to bring Lapid into a broad coalition. And it might be bad for the ultra-orthodox bloc.

Israel’s PR electoral system annoys mainstream politicians because it encourages a plethora of fringe parties, who waste their time and prevent them from doing what they want. The governing Likud-Beiteinu came together on a promise to overhaul the system. The proposals include raising the threshold for entering the Knesset from 2 to 6 per cent, thus removing some the smaller parties from the picture. Diversity is often numbing. But the prospect of Israel’s leaders revising the rules for their benefit invites suspicion, especially now that Avigdor Liberman, who led the push for reform, has had to stand down following charges of corruption. Moreover, reform would make things less funny.

Maybe it's the unconscious effect of the Sabbath, but here in Tel Aviv a soporific atmosphere hangs over next week's Israeli elections. Among the Israelis I have spoken to (mostly secular Tel Avivians), apathy prevails. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is going to win whatever happens, it seems, and he is going to have to come to some agreement with the hard right-winger Naftali Bennett. 'The television wants to make it exciting,' an old Labor voter told me earlier today. 'But it is not. Everybody knows.' His wife nodded from behind her sunglasses, and smiled. Another elderly fellow told me that he would only vote for the 'least bad one - it's always that way.' The political story of this election is of a hardening Right and a paralysed Left.

When did the dream of a two-state solution die? When it became clear that there are already two Palestinian states – the Hamas-run Gaza and the Palestinian Authority-governed West Bank? Or when the extremists of Hamas fired thousands of missiles into Israeli cities? Or last week when the ‘moderates’ of Fatah once again refused Israeli offers to go to the negotiating table and instead moved to circumvent their only negotiating partner via a diplomatic coup at the UN? No, in the eyes of portions of the UK government as well as the international community, the two-state solution is threatened not by these consistent, physically and diplomatically violent moves; but by everybody’s favourite subject: Israeli settlement building.

If anybody still wonders why there has not been a two-state solution long ago to the most famous – albeit least bloody – Middle East conflict, tonight’s UN speech by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is a good learning-curve. Abbas says that his act of unilateralism is the ‘last chance to save the two state solution.’ But of course what he means is that he thinks it is the last chance to save Mahmoud Abbas. For despite his talk of ‘the Palestinians’, ‘the Palestinian people’ and the ‘Palestinian state’ no such monolithic entities exist. There are already at least two major Palestinian entities, the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, and Gaza which is governed – after a fashion – by Hamas.

I have a piece in the Wall Street Journal (Europe) today on the pyrrhic ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Also - this week’s magazine carries a cover piece by me on the change that is happening in the region. As though determined to prove me right, the new Egyptian President has – with the praise of Hillary Clinton and Ban Ki-Moon still ringing in his ears – made certain declarations of intent: ‘Egypt's President Mohammed Mursi has issued a declaration banning challenges to his decrees, laws and decisions. The declaration also says no court can dissolve the constituent assembly, which is drawing up a new constitution. President Mursi also sacked the chief prosecutor.

Last night’s ceasefire is a strategic failure for Israel. While the end of military action must be welcomed, it is hard to see what Netanyahu has achieved beyond the killing of Ahmed Jabari. Despite a week of tit-for-tat missile fire, Israel secured none of its strategic objectives. In fact, in many cases it actually strengthened Hamas and diminished Israel’s security. Here’s some of the ways in which Israel has been weakened by Operation Pillar of Defence: 1) Hamas was able to break the psychological barrier of attacking Tel Aviv. No one has fired missiles at the city since 1991 when Saddam Hussein tried to undermine coalition forces in Operation Desert Storm.

Hamas have claimed responsibility for a bus-bombing in Tel Aviv earlier today. It is worth watching this video, which went out a few hours ago on Hamas’s ‘Al-Aqsa’ TV.  Over the presenter's response are shown the first photographs of wounded Israelis being carried from the scene of the bus-bombing. The presenter is saying: 'These are the scenes of the casualties. God willing, we will soon see black body bags. I pray to Allah the exalted that we see body bags in a short while. These are scenes of the Zionist casualties so far.' Right now in these moments, the mosques in the Gaza Strip – their minarets are loudly sounding cries of “Allahu Akbar” and cries of joy, and the residents of the Gaza Strip are bowing down to Allah for this offering.

A ceasefire is expected in Gaza later this evening, but is yet to materialise. Unsurprisingly, agreement has been hard to reach. Indeed, it has become a tool of propaganda. Hamas was busily briefing the world's media that the ceasefire had been agreed even as rockets struck Rishon LeZion in southern Israel at 16.22 (GMT), causing two light casualties. Israel, for its part, was clear that there would be no ceasfire while it was still under attack. It was hoped that the message had got through: the BBC reported that the guns, so to speak, fell silent shortly after 16.40 for more than half an hour. However, it was the triumph of hope over expectation.

As tensions between Israel and Gaza continue to flare, the real story is what’s happening in Cairo. The conflict represents an acute crisis for the Muslim Brotherhood, which knows the West has long been apprehensive about how it would conduct itself with regards to Israel. So far, the Brotherhood has been in no rush to give a definitive answer, offering instead a mix of sabre-rattling and olive branches. Its hand is now being forced. Internally, the Brotherhood is divided over the Gaza conflict. Hard liners see this as an excuse to tear up the peace treaty, reassert Egyptian pride, and impose themselves on the conflict.

The latest offensive between Israel and Hamas may only just have begun. But already a set of the usual lies have entered the British coverage. Let me pose a few questions to the people who are propagating them. 1) Why are Hamas firing into undisputed Israeli territory? The territory that Hamas are firing rockets into is not disputed territory. They are firing into Israel proper – that is, into land which absolutely everyone except for Israel’s annihilationist enemies recognises is the land of Israel. Is this Hamas’s way of calling for a two-state solution? Is it their way of trying to persuade Israel to sit down with Hamas’s enemies in the PA? Of course not.