

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
There is little chance peace can be brought
to the Middle East unless it is imposed on both Israel and Palestine by
the international community. Calling for an international peace
conference and an immediate cease-fire ought to be the first foreign
policy priority for the Obama administration.
Instead, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton's
remarks to the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday committed the
Obama administration to a path that is certain to fail as it has
throughout the past several decades.
She stressed three elements of her position:
This position is at odds with the views that Obama articulated when
he was seeking the Democratic nomination. At that point, he made clear
that we should negotiate with Iran and Syria, which both pose more
serious threats to American interests than Hamas.
The difference, of course, is the Israel lobby to which Obama and
Clinton have repeatedly paid obeisance. That lobby, representing the
most hard-line elements in the Jewish world but also tens of millions
of Christian Zionists who support the militarist perspective in dealing
with Arabs and Palestinians, has insisted as a matter of faith that
American politicians promise not to deal with Hamas. In the 1980s and
1990s, the lobby insisted that the United States not negotiate with the
Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Obama administration's game plan, according to several Israeli
analysts, is this: Call for a cease-fire that will freeze in place
Israel's commanding military position in the West Bank and Gaza after
allowing Israel some more time to finish its task of wiping out Hamas
operatives in Gaza, then hope that the military success of the Israelis
will strengthen Ehud Barak (head of the Israeli Labor Party) and Tzipi
Livni (head of Olmert's Kadima party) in Israel's February elections;
anticipate that these two will form a government to negotiate a peace
agreement with the Palestinian Authority, whose power will be
strengthened as Palestinians witness the defeat of the military option
proposed by Hamas.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian state likely to be produced by these
negotiations will be neither economically nor politically viable. Barak
and Livni will not have the power to make serious concessions to the
Palestinians, so the government they likely will form (with Secretary
of State Clinton and the Obama administration's participation) will be
one that allows the Israeli army to crisscross the Palestinian state in
order to safeguard the 400,000 Israelis who will continue to live in
settlements. The state thus created will resemble a patchwork of little
city-state cantons that will not look or feel to the Palestinians like
a real state.
While the weak Palestinian Authority may accept an arrangement of
this sort, the vast majority of Palestinians will eventually wake up to
understanding that this U.S. -negotiated deal is little more than an
agreement by Palestinians to police themselves while Israel retains its
settlements and its military dominance of Gaza and the West Bank.
Eventually, the Islamic fundamentalist movement will reappear and
gain new strength, and resume the struggle, while Israelis and
Americans cry foul because they gave the Palestinians a state.
The only viable alternative is for Obama to call for an
international conference of the European Unon, Israel and the Arab
States, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and, yes,
Iran and India as well, and allow that international conference to
impose a solution that provides security and justice to both sides.
Only an imposed settlement has the slightest chance of being just to
Palestinians - the precondition for a lasting peace, and a secure
Israel.
Hard as it might be to push the Obama administration in this
direction, it will be less difficult than getting Secretary of State
Clinton to use American power to directly force Israel to be responsive
to the minimum needs for peace and justice for the Palestinian people.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
There is little chance peace can be brought
to the Middle East unless it is imposed on both Israel and Palestine by
the international community. Calling for an international peace
conference and an immediate cease-fire ought to be the first foreign
policy priority for the Obama administration.
Instead, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton's
remarks to the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday committed the
Obama administration to a path that is certain to fail as it has
throughout the past several decades.
She stressed three elements of her position:
This position is at odds with the views that Obama articulated when
he was seeking the Democratic nomination. At that point, he made clear
that we should negotiate with Iran and Syria, which both pose more
serious threats to American interests than Hamas.
The difference, of course, is the Israel lobby to which Obama and
Clinton have repeatedly paid obeisance. That lobby, representing the
most hard-line elements in the Jewish world but also tens of millions
of Christian Zionists who support the militarist perspective in dealing
with Arabs and Palestinians, has insisted as a matter of faith that
American politicians promise not to deal with Hamas. In the 1980s and
1990s, the lobby insisted that the United States not negotiate with the
Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Obama administration's game plan, according to several Israeli
analysts, is this: Call for a cease-fire that will freeze in place
Israel's commanding military position in the West Bank and Gaza after
allowing Israel some more time to finish its task of wiping out Hamas
operatives in Gaza, then hope that the military success of the Israelis
will strengthen Ehud Barak (head of the Israeli Labor Party) and Tzipi
Livni (head of Olmert's Kadima party) in Israel's February elections;
anticipate that these two will form a government to negotiate a peace
agreement with the Palestinian Authority, whose power will be
strengthened as Palestinians witness the defeat of the military option
proposed by Hamas.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian state likely to be produced by these
negotiations will be neither economically nor politically viable. Barak
and Livni will not have the power to make serious concessions to the
Palestinians, so the government they likely will form (with Secretary
of State Clinton and the Obama administration's participation) will be
one that allows the Israeli army to crisscross the Palestinian state in
order to safeguard the 400,000 Israelis who will continue to live in
settlements. The state thus created will resemble a patchwork of little
city-state cantons that will not look or feel to the Palestinians like
a real state.
While the weak Palestinian Authority may accept an arrangement of
this sort, the vast majority of Palestinians will eventually wake up to
understanding that this U.S. -negotiated deal is little more than an
agreement by Palestinians to police themselves while Israel retains its
settlements and its military dominance of Gaza and the West Bank.
Eventually, the Islamic fundamentalist movement will reappear and
gain new strength, and resume the struggle, while Israelis and
Americans cry foul because they gave the Palestinians a state.
The only viable alternative is for Obama to call for an
international conference of the European Unon, Israel and the Arab
States, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and, yes,
Iran and India as well, and allow that international conference to
impose a solution that provides security and justice to both sides.
Only an imposed settlement has the slightest chance of being just to
Palestinians - the precondition for a lasting peace, and a secure
Israel.
Hard as it might be to push the Obama administration in this
direction, it will be less difficult than getting Secretary of State
Clinton to use American power to directly force Israel to be responsive
to the minimum needs for peace and justice for the Palestinian people.
There is little chance peace can be brought
to the Middle East unless it is imposed on both Israel and Palestine by
the international community. Calling for an international peace
conference and an immediate cease-fire ought to be the first foreign
policy priority for the Obama administration.
Instead, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton's
remarks to the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday committed the
Obama administration to a path that is certain to fail as it has
throughout the past several decades.
She stressed three elements of her position:
This position is at odds with the views that Obama articulated when
he was seeking the Democratic nomination. At that point, he made clear
that we should negotiate with Iran and Syria, which both pose more
serious threats to American interests than Hamas.
The difference, of course, is the Israel lobby to which Obama and
Clinton have repeatedly paid obeisance. That lobby, representing the
most hard-line elements in the Jewish world but also tens of millions
of Christian Zionists who support the militarist perspective in dealing
with Arabs and Palestinians, has insisted as a matter of faith that
American politicians promise not to deal with Hamas. In the 1980s and
1990s, the lobby insisted that the United States not negotiate with the
Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Obama administration's game plan, according to several Israeli
analysts, is this: Call for a cease-fire that will freeze in place
Israel's commanding military position in the West Bank and Gaza after
allowing Israel some more time to finish its task of wiping out Hamas
operatives in Gaza, then hope that the military success of the Israelis
will strengthen Ehud Barak (head of the Israeli Labor Party) and Tzipi
Livni (head of Olmert's Kadima party) in Israel's February elections;
anticipate that these two will form a government to negotiate a peace
agreement with the Palestinian Authority, whose power will be
strengthened as Palestinians witness the defeat of the military option
proposed by Hamas.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian state likely to be produced by these
negotiations will be neither economically nor politically viable. Barak
and Livni will not have the power to make serious concessions to the
Palestinians, so the government they likely will form (with Secretary
of State Clinton and the Obama administration's participation) will be
one that allows the Israeli army to crisscross the Palestinian state in
order to safeguard the 400,000 Israelis who will continue to live in
settlements. The state thus created will resemble a patchwork of little
city-state cantons that will not look or feel to the Palestinians like
a real state.
While the weak Palestinian Authority may accept an arrangement of
this sort, the vast majority of Palestinians will eventually wake up to
understanding that this U.S. -negotiated deal is little more than an
agreement by Palestinians to police themselves while Israel retains its
settlements and its military dominance of Gaza and the West Bank.
Eventually, the Islamic fundamentalist movement will reappear and
gain new strength, and resume the struggle, while Israelis and
Americans cry foul because they gave the Palestinians a state.
The only viable alternative is for Obama to call for an
international conference of the European Unon, Israel and the Arab
States, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and, yes,
Iran and India as well, and allow that international conference to
impose a solution that provides security and justice to both sides.
Only an imposed settlement has the slightest chance of being just to
Palestinians - the precondition for a lasting peace, and a secure
Israel.
Hard as it might be to push the Obama administration in this
direction, it will be less difficult than getting Secretary of State
Clinton to use American power to directly force Israel to be responsive
to the minimum needs for peace and justice for the Palestinian people.