PALESTINE-ISRAEL: STILL THE SHOUTING GOES ON

With apologies for the move away from political navel gazing, I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with arch schemer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the speech by US President Obama. Mr Netanyahu has said that the 1967 ceasefire borders between Israel and Palestinian territories then controlled by Egypt and Jordan are indefensible and that a peace agreement made on this basis is unworkable.

Well, if he thinks this, he must come up with a viable alternative which recognises all the grievances of the Palestinians, such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the issue of illegal settlements across the West Bank and the intolerable treatment by Israel of over 1m people in Gaza.

He won't because it is not possible for an Israeli Politician to address these issues under current circumstances. Israel feels embattled and under threat and the policy of the Israeli government for decades to hit them before they hit us has patently failed.

There is a solution, which will be achieved at some time in the future, although it is almost certain that it will be many years - and thousands of lives wasted - down the line. In 1947 a plan was proposed by the new - and still idealistic - United Nations for a single state shared between Arabs and Jews, with Jerusalem as an 'international' city, with a shared country and demilitarisation. Most Israelis would howl in horror at the suggestion that this could work as it would mean the end of a state built on a religion - itself an ugly concept in a plural world. (I can think of only Pakistan as another state based on faith - and look how successful that has been)

What it could mean is a unique opportunity to get the fulsome support of the Arab regimes which are undergoing their own massive upheavals, the opportunity for Israelis to enjoy peace for the first time ever, the complete neutering of Hezbollah in Lebanon if it does not have a cause to fight for and the gratitude of millions of people around the world as a major cause for the artificial divide between the invented camps of 'The West' and 'Islam' is removed.

That's my problem: I'm a dreamer. Perhaps my grandchildren will be able to travel in peace around the eastern Mediterranean to view the sites: the old crusader castles, the great mosques, the eternal city of Jerusalem, the absurd wall which divided people for no reason.

Perhaps.

TURN OFF, TUNE OUT, IGNORE - IT'S THE US MID-TERMS!

So Rambling Jim Naughtie has been flown over to the USA, the evening schedules have been cleared to host a results programme and Britain waits anxiously for the US mid-term election results. Fetch my slippers and the Bourbon, Mabel-Sue, for it's going to be a long night.

Or more probably it isn't for almost all of us, with the exception of the few hundred people in Westminster and White City who think this is a crucial night for global democracy, as well as the few hundred American ex-pats living here who might actually care about their home country. Is the massive expense of covering this story with anything more than a single news team and the BBC's generally capable Washington correspondent worthwhile? Is it a good use of my increasingly stretched licence fee, which can be used to make wonderful, innovative comedies like Him and Her or wildlife glories like the whole Attenborough oeuvre?

Granted, getting Naughtie out of the country is clearly a Good. Keeping him out would be even better but regrettably he will doubtless be back by the end of the week to badger, interrupt, argue with and refuse to listen to a series of politicians and possibly get the chance to be a pseud over some opera or arts story to show us how learned he isn't. However, this apart, what is the point? Why should we care any more than we might about the Indian elections, or those in Russia, both of which could have as significant an impact on the future global situation as the USA?

Yes, I know it is quite important. I understand that the USA is still key to the global economy and I realise that these elections could change much in that country but that's not my point. My point is to ask how many people in the UK are actually bothered and how many of them will stay up to watch the results?

The outcome of all this reflection is simply to conclude that the people who care are those at the BBC with the means to mobilise the formidable and very costly news machine. If only I had their power, I might suggest that they significantly ramped up their regional coverage, for example, so that my news always came from Oxford, rather than Southampton as it so often does. I might be able to push for more than one new story about Oxfordshire per day, when there must be a bit more going on around the county.

Sadly I am powerless against the ingrained obsession with all things American among the upper echelons of the Westminster and White City villages. So tune out tonight for the mid-term election results. Read a book, do a crossword, deflea the cat, go to bed, make love, enjoy the opportunity and forget this hubristic irrelevance which you will be able to read about extensively tomorrow morning after a good night's sleep and having avoided wasting hours out of your lives.

ENDORSEMENT FOR THE LDS FROM THE USA

There is a striking piece on the BBC news website in which former US Presidential candidate Howard Dean says he believes that Nick Clegg could win the election on May 6th. Well, that's pretty much why I'm doing what I am doing so it is wonderful to hear such an endorsement from someone with a good political pedigree who is outside of the debate. Dean compliments Clegg as a 'young, dynamic leader' and says he believes that there is such uncertainty that the LDs could come out on top at the election, especially if Clegg is boosted by the televised leaders' debates. For this reason I expect the love-in from David Cameron and Gordon Brown to abruptly come to a halt during these contests as they turn their fire on the candidate with the most to gain and the best policies by far.

This endorsement from Howard Dean echoes the simple, undeniable fact that the LDs got more votes than Labour at last year's Council elections and that 1 in 4 voters support us. If we can increase that number to 1 in 3 we're on the way. Plus, the poll rating for the two old parties has see-sawed for months but ours has been a pretty constant 17-20%.

Things are looking good for us. As Dean says: "I know the Liberals, I know Nick Clegg very well, and he intends to win this and I think they could."