SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
On Israeli Settlement Freeze, Public Has Obama's Back
May 02, 2009
There have been hints in the press that the Obama Administration has
been considering conditioning U.S. aid to Israel on a real freeze of
Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. There's a conventional
wisdom that suggests that doing this would touch a "third rail of
politics." But the conventional wisdom might not have been accurate;
if it once was accurate, it might not be accurate any more.
WorldPublicOpinion.org has just released a poll
showing that three-quarters of Americans oppose Israeli settlement
expansion in the West Bank. This number is up 23 points from 2002.
Even among respondents who say they sympathize with Israel more than
the Palestinians, 64% say Israel should not build settlements in the
West Bank.
Opposition to settlements is found among majorities of Democrats,
Republicans, and independents. Those who followed the issue closely
oppose settlement expansion by the same margin as those who don't.
Some may say: public opinion doesn't matter. What matters, they may
say, is that the so-called "Israel Lobby" will effectively punish any
politician who tries to shift U.S. policy towards Israel and the
Palestinians.
But the Obama Administration has already proved that this isn't necessarily so.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
The administration has asked Congress for minor changes in
U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in
the event Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian
government.
Secretary of State Clinton defended the administration's position
before Congress. She noted that
the United States supports and funds the Lebanese
government, even though it includes members of Hezbollah, another
militant group on the U.S. terrorist list.
Reps. Nita Lowey and Mark Kirk objected. But as the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency notes,
Significantly, however, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz
(D-Fla.), a pro-Israel stalwart, defended Clinton in a call organized
by the National Jewish Democratic Council to mark the first 100 days
of the Obama administration."The unity government itself will have embraced those principles," she
said. "The most important priority for members of Congress is to
support Israel and to move the peace process forward."
If the Obama Administration can shift U.S. policy towards engaging in
some form with Hamas, then surely it can shift policy towards moving
the U.S. from ineffective to effective implementation of its stated
policy of opposition to Israeli settlement expansion, as it is
virtually universally recognized that stopping Israeli settlement
expansion is an absolutely necessary element of achieving a two-state
solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict -- just as it is virtually
universally recognized that some form of engagement with Hamas will be
necessary to achieve a two-state solution in the long run, and to get
effective aid into Gaza in the short run.
Moreover, if the U.S. would get serious about stopping Israeli
settlement expansion, it could help fundamentally alter the political
dynamics in Israel. Israel's right-wing has grown accustomed to the
notion that Israel can indefinitely go through the motions of a "peace
process," while steadily expanding settlements in the West Bank in the
hopes of making a Palestinian state impossible. If the U.S. puts an
end to this game, it will empower the political forces in Israel who
genuinely want a two-state solution -- who, on this question, represent
the majority of the Israeli population.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
There have been hints in the press that the Obama Administration has
been considering conditioning U.S. aid to Israel on a real freeze of
Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. There's a conventional
wisdom that suggests that doing this would touch a "third rail of
politics." But the conventional wisdom might not have been accurate;
if it once was accurate, it might not be accurate any more.
WorldPublicOpinion.org has just released a poll
showing that three-quarters of Americans oppose Israeli settlement
expansion in the West Bank. This number is up 23 points from 2002.
Even among respondents who say they sympathize with Israel more than
the Palestinians, 64% say Israel should not build settlements in the
West Bank.
Opposition to settlements is found among majorities of Democrats,
Republicans, and independents. Those who followed the issue closely
oppose settlement expansion by the same margin as those who don't.
Some may say: public opinion doesn't matter. What matters, they may
say, is that the so-called "Israel Lobby" will effectively punish any
politician who tries to shift U.S. policy towards Israel and the
Palestinians.
But the Obama Administration has already proved that this isn't necessarily so.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
The administration has asked Congress for minor changes in
U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in
the event Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian
government.
Secretary of State Clinton defended the administration's position
before Congress. She noted that
the United States supports and funds the Lebanese
government, even though it includes members of Hezbollah, another
militant group on the U.S. terrorist list.
Reps. Nita Lowey and Mark Kirk objected. But as the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency notes,
Significantly, however, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz
(D-Fla.), a pro-Israel stalwart, defended Clinton in a call organized
by the National Jewish Democratic Council to mark the first 100 days
of the Obama administration."The unity government itself will have embraced those principles," she
said. "The most important priority for members of Congress is to
support Israel and to move the peace process forward."
If the Obama Administration can shift U.S. policy towards engaging in
some form with Hamas, then surely it can shift policy towards moving
the U.S. from ineffective to effective implementation of its stated
policy of opposition to Israeli settlement expansion, as it is
virtually universally recognized that stopping Israeli settlement
expansion is an absolutely necessary element of achieving a two-state
solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict -- just as it is virtually
universally recognized that some form of engagement with Hamas will be
necessary to achieve a two-state solution in the long run, and to get
effective aid into Gaza in the short run.
Moreover, if the U.S. would get serious about stopping Israeli
settlement expansion, it could help fundamentally alter the political
dynamics in Israel. Israel's right-wing has grown accustomed to the
notion that Israel can indefinitely go through the motions of a "peace
process," while steadily expanding settlements in the West Bank in the
hopes of making a Palestinian state impossible. If the U.S. puts an
end to this game, it will empower the political forces in Israel who
genuinely want a two-state solution -- who, on this question, represent
the majority of the Israeli population.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
There have been hints in the press that the Obama Administration has
been considering conditioning U.S. aid to Israel on a real freeze of
Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. There's a conventional
wisdom that suggests that doing this would touch a "third rail of
politics." But the conventional wisdom might not have been accurate;
if it once was accurate, it might not be accurate any more.
WorldPublicOpinion.org has just released a poll
showing that three-quarters of Americans oppose Israeli settlement
expansion in the West Bank. This number is up 23 points from 2002.
Even among respondents who say they sympathize with Israel more than
the Palestinians, 64% say Israel should not build settlements in the
West Bank.
Opposition to settlements is found among majorities of Democrats,
Republicans, and independents. Those who followed the issue closely
oppose settlement expansion by the same margin as those who don't.
Some may say: public opinion doesn't matter. What matters, they may
say, is that the so-called "Israel Lobby" will effectively punish any
politician who tries to shift U.S. policy towards Israel and the
Palestinians.
But the Obama Administration has already proved that this isn't necessarily so.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
The administration has asked Congress for minor changes in
U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in
the event Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian
government.
Secretary of State Clinton defended the administration's position
before Congress. She noted that
the United States supports and funds the Lebanese
government, even though it includes members of Hezbollah, another
militant group on the U.S. terrorist list.
Reps. Nita Lowey and Mark Kirk objected. But as the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency notes,
Significantly, however, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz
(D-Fla.), a pro-Israel stalwart, defended Clinton in a call organized
by the National Jewish Democratic Council to mark the first 100 days
of the Obama administration."The unity government itself will have embraced those principles," she
said. "The most important priority for members of Congress is to
support Israel and to move the peace process forward."
If the Obama Administration can shift U.S. policy towards engaging in
some form with Hamas, then surely it can shift policy towards moving
the U.S. from ineffective to effective implementation of its stated
policy of opposition to Israeli settlement expansion, as it is
virtually universally recognized that stopping Israeli settlement
expansion is an absolutely necessary element of achieving a two-state
solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict -- just as it is virtually
universally recognized that some form of engagement with Hamas will be
necessary to achieve a two-state solution in the long run, and to get
effective aid into Gaza in the short run.
Moreover, if the U.S. would get serious about stopping Israeli
settlement expansion, it could help fundamentally alter the political
dynamics in Israel. Israel's right-wing has grown accustomed to the
notion that Israel can indefinitely go through the motions of a "peace
process," while steadily expanding settlements in the West Bank in the
hopes of making a Palestinian state impossible. If the U.S. puts an
end to this game, it will empower the political forces in Israel who
genuinely want a two-state solution -- who, on this question, represent
the majority of the Israeli population.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.