Israeli contenders in the upcoming elections have no lack of internal or domestic issues to raise in their campaigns.

Netanyahu, however, seems to think that he can win votes and influence people by running on a Palestinian-issues agenda.

Worse yet, sometimes he gives the impression that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is his main rival in the Israeli elections.

His target audience, however, remains the extreme political, religious, and settler right.

His obvious objective has been to bring forward deferred permanent status issues and to prejudge the outcome of negotiations by undertaking prejudicial and illegal unilateral steps capable of scuttling the peace process and any future chances of peace.

He started by flexing his settlement muscles. He did not promise the extremist settlers the moon, rather sizable portions of Palestinian land in exchange for their votes.

This set him off on a collision course with the US administration, having promised President Clinton, no less, that Israel would not pursue its settlement activities (particularly in the wake of the Wye River talks) so as not to jeopardize the already fragile peace process any further (Key Issues, April 11 and April 13--Israeli Settlements, American Statements).

In another unilateral initiative, Netanyahu declared war on Palestinian Jerusalem, its institutions, major figures, and ID holders (Key Issues, March 19, March 26, and March 29).

Having claimed credit for “cleansing” Jerusalem of Palestinian activities and institutions, he then raised the alarm that Palestinian control over the city is on the increase.

Having adopted the ID confiscation policy as another form of demographic cleansing, declaring that he would impose a Jewish settler majority in East Jerusalem, he later discovered that his policies had led to an increase in the Palestinian population. Palestinian Jerusalemites, who had been the victims of Netanyahu’s “silent transfer” measures, fully aware that their “center of life” is Jerusalem, returned to the city in large numbers (estimated at over 30,000). The harsh and oppressive conditions of life in occupied Jerusalem were obviously preferable to them than losing their right to their identity as determined by the Israeli occupation.

Netanyahu and Olmert clearly underestimated the depth of Palestinian commitment and loyalty to Jerusalem.

As has become apparent from the international jurists’ and legal community’s concern over the issue, they had also ignored the responses of the international community. Once again, they had set themselves up for global censure.

The floundering assault on Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem has become a running comedy of errors (Key Issues, March 19, March 26, and March 29).

Having issued closure orders against several institutions, they had to backtrack at the belated “discovery” that these institutions were either licensed or independent, non-governmental organizations.

The same applies to the withdrawing of non-existent VIP cards from Husseini and Ashrawi, following the “discovery” that neither of them carried such a card.

The latest episode in this farce took place as recently as yesterday, April 22nd. On Wednesday April 21st, Faisal Husseini met at the Orient House with representatives of the diplomatic corps, including Jerusalem Consuls General and heads of missions or embassies to the Palestinian Authority.

David Bar-Illan first declared the event insignificant, as being nothing out of the ordinary.

Then, the position shifted to address the subject of the meeting. Israel had no objections to such meetings, provided they did not address political issues.

Of the thousands of such meetings held at the Orient House in the last decade, one would be hard put to find one non-political or purely social or frivolous meeting.

Besides, the imposition of censorship on the Palestinian-international dialogue, one would assume, falls outside the mandate of the Israeli occupation.

It is appropriate here to remind Netanyahu of the consequences of dictating policies on the rest of the world. Sharon’s attempt at forbidding foreign diplomats from visiting the Orient House or meeting with Palestinians in Jerusalem had resulted in the official European declaration of the non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and of the reaffirmation of UN resolution 181 (Key Issues, March 13).

The Israeli government, however, seems intent not to learn from past experience.

The April 21st meeting was later described as being particularly provocative since it took place on Israel’s “Independence Day.” The assumption then would be that it would have been acceptable on any other date.

It is worth pointing out that the date was dictated by the occasion of the Israeli High Court’s session (April 22nd) on ID confiscation, and the presence of several international judges who also participated in the meeting.

The magnitude of the meeting then took on greater significance because of the presence of “Arab ambassadors” according to Bar-Illan. It is assumed then that had the Arab ambassadors not been present, by some racist or political quirk, the meeting would have been harmless.

To add insult to injury, the Israeli inner cabinet saw fit to deliberate on the grave event. Emerging from their evening meeting on the 22nd, they announced their decision to close down three “Palestinian Authority offices” in the Orient House.

Lest they be taken by surprise yet again, it would be fitting here to inform them that there are no such offices in the Orient House.

It has been leaked that these “offices” include the Geographical Research Unit and the office of Faisal Husseini himself.

The Geographical Research Unit is part of the Arab Studies Society, a licensed research center housed in the building long before even the beginning of the peace process.

As a member of the PLO Executive Committee Faisal Husseini is not a member of the PNA. The Orient House had housed his office as head of the Arab Studies Society, and later as head of the Palestinian Peace Team. All preparations for the Madrid Process, including high-level meetings and consultations, took place at the Orient House. The Working Groups for the Multilateral Process are also housed there.

Both the American and the Israeli Governments (the latter headed by the then PM Yitzhak Shamir) had agreed to these arrangements and had functioned accordingly.

The ongoing saga-cum-farce of the Netanyahu battle over Jerusalem is more ridiculous than sublime, more windmills than real monsters. Were it not for the genuine suffering of the Palestinian Jerusalem population, it would not have been dignified by any response beyond dismissal.

The other Palestinian items on the right-wing election agenda are even more self-defeating.

The more dramatic is the threat to reoccupy Palestinian cities or annex vast areas of Palestinian land should a Palestinian State be declared on May 4. Such “drastic measures” are further indications of the shortsighted and irresponsible policies that are based on intimidation and threats of violence.

As a pre-processed excuse for any potential failure (or as the refuge of the politically bankrupt), Netanyahu keeps accusing President Yasser Arafat of “interfering in the elections” or of backing Ehud Barak, the leader of One Israel.

It is no secret that Arafat has painstakingly stayed out of the Israeli election fray. One should question, however, whether Netanyahu seriously believes that Arafat can make or break political careers in Israel. It is also doubtful whether the Israeli public would take kindly to such a slight that assumes that their vote is a simplistic response to Arafat’s moves.

Another Palestinian issue on the right wing platform is Israel’s collective punitive measures, or the ability to inflict pain.

No one denies Israel’s military “strength” or reservoir of repression when it comes to its Palestinian victims. Since its creation, Israel has inflicted all types of collective and individual suffering on the Palestinians.

The list includes dispossession, dispersion, and exile; several massacres; the razing of whole villages as well as the demolition of individual homes; assassinations and various forms of extra-judicial killings; deportations and expulsion; administrative detention and systematic (legalized) torture; land confiscation; closures and sieges; economic strangulation and deprivation; and much more.

The Israeli occupation’s inhumanity is not subject to question. So what does Netanyahu have to gain from demonstrating that he can do more of the same?

Even if he does “succeed” in demolishing more homes, imposing more frequent closures, reneging on more agreements, confiscating more land, building more settlements, torturing more prisoners, and generally creating a new hell-on-earth for the Palestinians, his competitors can still boast of equal if not greater accomplishments in that arena.

Labor was the settlement champion, Rabin broke bones, Peres bombed Qana, Barak personally carried out assassinations—the list is endless. The whole political spectrum in Israel can claim “credit” for past and present atrocities committed against the Palestinians.

The core question is whether the Israeli people want these “credentials” for their leadership. Neither the moral high ground nor the politics of pragmatism and self-interest (not to speak of the requirements of peace) can be served by such a negative competition.

Perhaps the real problem lies not with the nature of the Israeli electorate, but more with the candidates who have such a degraded view of their public as to think that the road to office is paved with bad intentions.

It is high time that a new yardstick and a different platform are adopted in the upcoming Israeli elections. The current ones, including Palestinian issues, have already failed the test.

After all, charity does begin at home.