In 2008, I was living in New York working as a freelance journalist for an Australian publication; I had to think long and hard as to whether to accept the project or not. I decided to do so for two reasons. First, it was a worthwhile undertaking that tapped into my expertise as a broadcast journalist, to share it with local Palestinian journalists to create a flagship weekly investigative current affairs program that would eventually extend its reach into the region. Second, as a journalist of Lebanese heritage everything I knew about Israel was tempered by the media's coverage of the conflict. After a week, I decided it was time to tackle this story and to find out if the Israelis were really the "monsters" I was led to believe and confront my fear and prejudice.

During the five-month assignment I witnessed and experienced both sides of the wall, which I named "Shock and Awe". It symbolised the divide between the two sides; the frustration of the Palestinians and the cynicism of the Israelis. Living on Heleni Hamalka Street in Jerusalem, I immersed myself as much as I could in the Israeli way of life, and at work, it was an immersion in everyday life for Palestinians. I did not think either would be easy, but the surprise was that it wasn't difficult either.

As the project rolled on and it was launched, the program, Hard Questions, was not going to deal simply with "the conflict" - it would also tackle issues within the territories. The local journalists I worked with were keen to investigate and expose the rampant internal political, economic and social malfeasance - but they also feared for their lives. I had many a day of robust discussions during editorial meetings and script editing. I had a mandate to introduce and ensure that journalistic integrity and principles were not compromised, at any cost. It was an extremely difficult task; the Palestinian editorial team were on board, but the leadership was not. I recall one member of the team wanted to use the term "martyr" instead of "suicide bomber". Editorially it needed change, and it did. During my time the new editorial directives prevailed.

I witnessed and listened to the hardship the Palestinians faced. Surprisingly, the complaints were not totally about the Israelis - they were as critical of their own government. In fact, when I was filming a story in Hebron, the level of poverty was shocking but the local population did not blame the Israelis - they blamed the Palestinian leadership for allowing cheap Chinese imports that halted their manufacturing industry and put them out of work.

I was also very critical of the Palestinians. As an outsider, Palestinians were one of the highest recipients of foreign aid, but somehow beyond Ramallah it was difficult to quantify the benefits. I believed and told them that sooner or later the world would grow fatigued by the issue, and that their leadership had missed a number of opportunities to resolve the conflict - partition proposals from prime minister Ehud Barak in 2000, prime minister Ehud Olmert in 2007 and US president Barack Obama in 2014. The problem for the Palestinians was the lack of leadership change - longevity brought with it rot and rut. In contrast, the problem with the Israelis was a revolving door of leadership. Until now.

I travelled to the Palestinian territories every day, but I lived in Jerusalem. During the five-month assignment I met and spoke to many Israelis. I learnt of numerous local organisations that advocated for the Palestinians. I learnt that at the grassroots level there was a great deal of engagement between the Israelis and Palestinians. The assignment was exhausting, but on a personal level it was edifying. The assignment taught me that relying entirely on the media on this issue was perhaps naive, because I found the majority of Israelis I interacted with were gentle and kind. Yes, some were cynical - during one conversation regarding a meeting between the Palestinian and Israeli leaders, an Israeli acquaintance quipped: "I hope they have a nice lunch!" But by the time I completed my assignment in late 2008, Israelis were getting ready for elections and I returned to New York with informed and more balanced views on the conflict, holding great optimism for both sides.

READ MORE:

The election results told a different story.

Mr Netanyahu's ideology was writ large, though so were those before him. But unlike Mr Netanyahu, they shifted positions. Mr Rabin and Mr Sharon eventually leaned towards a diplomatic approach. And Mr Olmert, as he admitted, was ready to sacrifice his "emotional and historical" beliefs to share Jerusalem. But not Mr Netanyahu. His incremental shift towards hardline policies, combined with the election of "a true friend of the state of Israel" in US President Donald Trump, created a platform for Mr Netanyahu to continue his pivot towards an extremist manifesto. This was no longer just about political survival - it was about the "deal of the century" to deliver a "biblical Palestine".

Albeit now at a distance, I have witnessed Netanyahu's government continue to peel away the layers of democracy. I have witnessed the erosion of decency, humanity and common sense. But most of all, I have witnessed the use of fearmongering to blind people to the lessons of history. I am witnessing it again in the legitimisation of illegal settlement (against the international order) by the so called "deal of the century". A policy that allows bulldozers to forge ahead into Palestinian territories with abandon. A policy rigged by a group of people that includes two financiers of illegal settlements - David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, and Jared Kushner, Senior White House Adviser and President Trump's son-in-law.

I had hoped that at the recent election Israel would reclaim its position as the "only democracy" in the region. But the election result showed otherwise, and a recent Israeli Voice Index poll by the Israel Democracy Institute sadly only solidified that outcome. The April poll found 52 per cent of Jewish Israelis support the proposed annexation plans, and an alarming 37 per cent, the biggest block of those surveyed, said that Palestinian legal status should remain unchanged - that is, that Palestinians not be given any political status beyond what they have today. No wonder alternate prime minister Gantz moved so swiftly last week to instruct the army chief "to step up preparations in the Palestinian arena".

This is not the Israel I know.