To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Incongruous. One can hardly
think of a more suited term to describe the new US administration's
approach to peacemaking in the Middle East. Though there is little evidence
that previous US administrations had genuinely attempted to play a balanced
role in forging a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, many
hoped -- and a few still hope -- that Barack Obama's administration
would bring about new standards.
Incongruous. One can hardly
think of a more suited term to describe the new US administration's
approach to peacemaking in the Middle East. Though there is little evidence
that previous US administrations had genuinely attempted to play a balanced
role in forging a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, many
hoped -- and a few still hope -- that Barack Obama's administration
would bring about new standards.
However, if recent comments
made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffice as a general indication
of the administration's Middle East policy, then little change is on
the horizon.
Clinton told US legislators
23 April that the key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was
Tehran; that without getting tough on Iran, Israel could not be expected
to pursue peace with the Palestinians. "The two go hand in hand,"
she emphasised. What a baffling approach to peacemaking. In order for
peace to prevail, Israel should engage Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority
in "discussions" aimed at inspiring the isolation of Iran,
for reasons entirely pertinent to US interests and Israeli "security".
While Clinton's approach rests
on luring Israel into her proposed peace discussions, what is Clinton's
promise to the Palestinians, the Arabs, and indeed Iran but endless
chatter, a regional cold war and sectarian divisions? Hasn't the Middle
East seen enough of that? Is it not time to relegate such detrimental
language and focus on positive engagement, regional stability and economic
cooperation?
In fact, there is concrete
evidence that supports the claim that a responsible US policy in the
region could indeed usher in a new beginning, which would ultimately
prove beneficial to the US in a time of economic meltdown and repeated
crises. For example, Iran has made clear its intentions of espousing
dialogue with the US, Hamas is openly seeking "engagement",
and Hizbullah -- which seems committed to Lebanon's stability -- is
positively responding to EU diplomatic overtures.
However, it seems that the
new US administration with all the gutsy talk of boldness, daring and
audacity is still unwilling or unable to confront Israel's chaotic and
destructive behaviour in Palestine and in the Middle East at large.
Clinton should have used entirely
different language and adopted a wholly different approach if she and
her administration were keenly interested in investing in a just peace,
and not mere "discussions". Instead of trying to entice Israel
to engage the Palestinians long enough to deceive the Arabs and alienate
Iran, she should have dealt -- and strongly so -- with the provocative
politics disseminated by Israel's new right-wing government.
Israeli leaders, confident
of their country's revered status among Western governments, which immunes
it from any consequential criticism, are lashing out left and right.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, recognised in many circles as "fascist", is leading
Israel's diplomatic offensive, a strategy used and perfected by previous
Israeli governments. The aim of the offensive is to condition any Israeli
"concessions" on specific demands, whose implementation often
elicits anything but peace and stability.
Lieberman told The Jerusalem
Post on 23 April that it would be "impossible to resolve any problem
in our region without resolving the Iranian problem". One can only
guess what "resolving the Iranian problem" means and requires.
However, it's important to recall that it was Lieberman who launched
his newest career by rejecting the Annapolis peace conference outcomes,
reverting to the roadmap solely because the latter requires nothing
of Israel until Palestinians completely crack down on "terror".
Under Israel's definition of terrorist groups, which also includes the
elected Palestinian government, Lieberman's true objective is to absolve
Israel from any expectations pertaining to peace, dialogue or even simple
discussions.
Lieberman is not only agitated
by the largely discretionary requirements placed on Israel, but by the
language itself. "Over the last two weeks I've had many conversations
with my colleagues around the world. And everybody, you know, speaks
with you like you're in a campaign: occupation, settlements, settlers,"
said Lieberman, who described those using such language as "speaking
in slogans".
Lieberman is, of course, not
the eccentric loner of the Israeli government, but in many ways represents
the emerging status quo in Israel, with all of its alarming tendencies.
Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is angry
over an EU attempt at linking closer ties with Israel with the latter's
commitment to a two-state solution. "Peace is in Israel's interest
no less than it is in Europe's interest, and there's no need to make
the upgrade in relations with Israel conditional on progress on the
peace process. We are in the process of reviewing our policy; don't
rush us," Netanyahu reportedly told visiting Czech Prime Minister
Mirek Topolanek.
Netanyahu was helpful enough
to elaborate on what he meant by "peace is in Israel's interest,"
when he said: "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then
Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either," in reference to the
expansion of illegal Jewish settlements and destruction of Arab homes.
Lieberman, on the other hand,
has dashed any hopes that Israel might find the Arab peace initiative
a common ground for peacemaking, according to Haaretz, reporting on
24 April. He rejected it, in part, because it stipulates a just solution
to the Palestinian refugee problem in accordance with international
law. Moreover, he called on the international community to stop pushing
for a Palestinian state.
Not only does Israel want to
preserve its matrix of control over the West Bank, annex Arab lands,
and maintain its illegal settlements in violation of international law,
but it also wants to control the language, silence mere calls for Palestinian
statehood, and lead a world of fury, including that of the Arabs, against
Iran. So much for peacemaking.
Under such a reality, it behoves
Clinton and the Obama administration to abandon the tired slogans and
the old, belligerent policies of their predecessor. If they are indeed
interested in a just peace, for its own sake, then luring Israel to
engage Abbas only to trick the Arabs and isolate Iran cannot be a promising
start.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Incongruous. One can hardly
think of a more suited term to describe the new US administration's
approach to peacemaking in the Middle East. Though there is little evidence
that previous US administrations had genuinely attempted to play a balanced
role in forging a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, many
hoped -- and a few still hope -- that Barack Obama's administration
would bring about new standards.
However, if recent comments
made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffice as a general indication
of the administration's Middle East policy, then little change is on
the horizon.
Clinton told US legislators
23 April that the key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was
Tehran; that without getting tough on Iran, Israel could not be expected
to pursue peace with the Palestinians. "The two go hand in hand,"
she emphasised. What a baffling approach to peacemaking. In order for
peace to prevail, Israel should engage Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority
in "discussions" aimed at inspiring the isolation of Iran,
for reasons entirely pertinent to US interests and Israeli "security".
While Clinton's approach rests
on luring Israel into her proposed peace discussions, what is Clinton's
promise to the Palestinians, the Arabs, and indeed Iran but endless
chatter, a regional cold war and sectarian divisions? Hasn't the Middle
East seen enough of that? Is it not time to relegate such detrimental
language and focus on positive engagement, regional stability and economic
cooperation?
In fact, there is concrete
evidence that supports the claim that a responsible US policy in the
region could indeed usher in a new beginning, which would ultimately
prove beneficial to the US in a time of economic meltdown and repeated
crises. For example, Iran has made clear its intentions of espousing
dialogue with the US, Hamas is openly seeking "engagement",
and Hizbullah -- which seems committed to Lebanon's stability -- is
positively responding to EU diplomatic overtures.
However, it seems that the
new US administration with all the gutsy talk of boldness, daring and
audacity is still unwilling or unable to confront Israel's chaotic and
destructive behaviour in Palestine and in the Middle East at large.
Clinton should have used entirely
different language and adopted a wholly different approach if she and
her administration were keenly interested in investing in a just peace,
and not mere "discussions". Instead of trying to entice Israel
to engage the Palestinians long enough to deceive the Arabs and alienate
Iran, she should have dealt -- and strongly so -- with the provocative
politics disseminated by Israel's new right-wing government.
Israeli leaders, confident
of their country's revered status among Western governments, which immunes
it from any consequential criticism, are lashing out left and right.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, recognised in many circles as "fascist", is leading
Israel's diplomatic offensive, a strategy used and perfected by previous
Israeli governments. The aim of the offensive is to condition any Israeli
"concessions" on specific demands, whose implementation often
elicits anything but peace and stability.
Lieberman told The Jerusalem
Post on 23 April that it would be "impossible to resolve any problem
in our region without resolving the Iranian problem". One can only
guess what "resolving the Iranian problem" means and requires.
However, it's important to recall that it was Lieberman who launched
his newest career by rejecting the Annapolis peace conference outcomes,
reverting to the roadmap solely because the latter requires nothing
of Israel until Palestinians completely crack down on "terror".
Under Israel's definition of terrorist groups, which also includes the
elected Palestinian government, Lieberman's true objective is to absolve
Israel from any expectations pertaining to peace, dialogue or even simple
discussions.
Lieberman is not only agitated
by the largely discretionary requirements placed on Israel, but by the
language itself. "Over the last two weeks I've had many conversations
with my colleagues around the world. And everybody, you know, speaks
with you like you're in a campaign: occupation, settlements, settlers,"
said Lieberman, who described those using such language as "speaking
in slogans".
Lieberman is, of course, not
the eccentric loner of the Israeli government, but in many ways represents
the emerging status quo in Israel, with all of its alarming tendencies.
Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is angry
over an EU attempt at linking closer ties with Israel with the latter's
commitment to a two-state solution. "Peace is in Israel's interest
no less than it is in Europe's interest, and there's no need to make
the upgrade in relations with Israel conditional on progress on the
peace process. We are in the process of reviewing our policy; don't
rush us," Netanyahu reportedly told visiting Czech Prime Minister
Mirek Topolanek.
Netanyahu was helpful enough
to elaborate on what he meant by "peace is in Israel's interest,"
when he said: "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then
Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either," in reference to the
expansion of illegal Jewish settlements and destruction of Arab homes.
Lieberman, on the other hand,
has dashed any hopes that Israel might find the Arab peace initiative
a common ground for peacemaking, according to Haaretz, reporting on
24 April. He rejected it, in part, because it stipulates a just solution
to the Palestinian refugee problem in accordance with international
law. Moreover, he called on the international community to stop pushing
for a Palestinian state.
Not only does Israel want to
preserve its matrix of control over the West Bank, annex Arab lands,
and maintain its illegal settlements in violation of international law,
but it also wants to control the language, silence mere calls for Palestinian
statehood, and lead a world of fury, including that of the Arabs, against
Iran. So much for peacemaking.
Under such a reality, it behoves
Clinton and the Obama administration to abandon the tired slogans and
the old, belligerent policies of their predecessor. If they are indeed
interested in a just peace, for its own sake, then luring Israel to
engage Abbas only to trick the Arabs and isolate Iran cannot be a promising
start.
Incongruous. One can hardly
think of a more suited term to describe the new US administration's
approach to peacemaking in the Middle East. Though there is little evidence
that previous US administrations had genuinely attempted to play a balanced
role in forging a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, many
hoped -- and a few still hope -- that Barack Obama's administration
would bring about new standards.
However, if recent comments
made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffice as a general indication
of the administration's Middle East policy, then little change is on
the horizon.
Clinton told US legislators
23 April that the key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was
Tehran; that without getting tough on Iran, Israel could not be expected
to pursue peace with the Palestinians. "The two go hand in hand,"
she emphasised. What a baffling approach to peacemaking. In order for
peace to prevail, Israel should engage Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority
in "discussions" aimed at inspiring the isolation of Iran,
for reasons entirely pertinent to US interests and Israeli "security".
While Clinton's approach rests
on luring Israel into her proposed peace discussions, what is Clinton's
promise to the Palestinians, the Arabs, and indeed Iran but endless
chatter, a regional cold war and sectarian divisions? Hasn't the Middle
East seen enough of that? Is it not time to relegate such detrimental
language and focus on positive engagement, regional stability and economic
cooperation?
In fact, there is concrete
evidence that supports the claim that a responsible US policy in the
region could indeed usher in a new beginning, which would ultimately
prove beneficial to the US in a time of economic meltdown and repeated
crises. For example, Iran has made clear its intentions of espousing
dialogue with the US, Hamas is openly seeking "engagement",
and Hizbullah -- which seems committed to Lebanon's stability -- is
positively responding to EU diplomatic overtures.
However, it seems that the
new US administration with all the gutsy talk of boldness, daring and
audacity is still unwilling or unable to confront Israel's chaotic and
destructive behaviour in Palestine and in the Middle East at large.
Clinton should have used entirely
different language and adopted a wholly different approach if she and
her administration were keenly interested in investing in a just peace,
and not mere "discussions". Instead of trying to entice Israel
to engage the Palestinians long enough to deceive the Arabs and alienate
Iran, she should have dealt -- and strongly so -- with the provocative
politics disseminated by Israel's new right-wing government.
Israeli leaders, confident
of their country's revered status among Western governments, which immunes
it from any consequential criticism, are lashing out left and right.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, recognised in many circles as "fascist", is leading
Israel's diplomatic offensive, a strategy used and perfected by previous
Israeli governments. The aim of the offensive is to condition any Israeli
"concessions" on specific demands, whose implementation often
elicits anything but peace and stability.
Lieberman told The Jerusalem
Post on 23 April that it would be "impossible to resolve any problem
in our region without resolving the Iranian problem". One can only
guess what "resolving the Iranian problem" means and requires.
However, it's important to recall that it was Lieberman who launched
his newest career by rejecting the Annapolis peace conference outcomes,
reverting to the roadmap solely because the latter requires nothing
of Israel until Palestinians completely crack down on "terror".
Under Israel's definition of terrorist groups, which also includes the
elected Palestinian government, Lieberman's true objective is to absolve
Israel from any expectations pertaining to peace, dialogue or even simple
discussions.
Lieberman is not only agitated
by the largely discretionary requirements placed on Israel, but by the
language itself. "Over the last two weeks I've had many conversations
with my colleagues around the world. And everybody, you know, speaks
with you like you're in a campaign: occupation, settlements, settlers,"
said Lieberman, who described those using such language as "speaking
in slogans".
Lieberman is, of course, not
the eccentric loner of the Israeli government, but in many ways represents
the emerging status quo in Israel, with all of its alarming tendencies.
Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is angry
over an EU attempt at linking closer ties with Israel with the latter's
commitment to a two-state solution. "Peace is in Israel's interest
no less than it is in Europe's interest, and there's no need to make
the upgrade in relations with Israel conditional on progress on the
peace process. We are in the process of reviewing our policy; don't
rush us," Netanyahu reportedly told visiting Czech Prime Minister
Mirek Topolanek.
Netanyahu was helpful enough
to elaborate on what he meant by "peace is in Israel's interest,"
when he said: "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then
Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either," in reference to the
expansion of illegal Jewish settlements and destruction of Arab homes.
Lieberman, on the other hand,
has dashed any hopes that Israel might find the Arab peace initiative
a common ground for peacemaking, according to Haaretz, reporting on
24 April. He rejected it, in part, because it stipulates a just solution
to the Palestinian refugee problem in accordance with international
law. Moreover, he called on the international community to stop pushing
for a Palestinian state.
Not only does Israel want to
preserve its matrix of control over the West Bank, annex Arab lands,
and maintain its illegal settlements in violation of international law,
but it also wants to control the language, silence mere calls for Palestinian
statehood, and lead a world of fury, including that of the Arabs, against
Iran. So much for peacemaking.
Under such a reality, it behoves
Clinton and the Obama administration to abandon the tired slogans and
the old, belligerent policies of their predecessor. If they are indeed
interested in a just peace, for its own sake, then luring Israel to
engage Abbas only to trick the Arabs and isolate Iran cannot be a promising
start.