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.
Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly's seventy-first session on Tuesday, September 20, 2016. (Photo: United Nations/Cia Pak)
The Barack Obama of 2008 reemerged at the United Nations on Tuesday, bookending his presidency with an uplifting address somewhat critical of American power and calling for an end to economic inequality at home and abroad.
The speech revealed the president that Obama might have been - and that many people had hoped for - if he had successfully confronted the American Deep State. But he waited until his farewell U.N. address, much like Dwight Eisenhower did with his Farewell Address in 1961 warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, to say what he really thought without having to suffer the full consequences inside the Beltway.
Obama didn't mention the word "exceptional" once as he has in his past U.N. speeches, and he kept his distorted criticism of Russia and China to a minimum. (He briefly tried to say the U.S. was not behind the Ukraine coup.) Last year, bashing Beijing and Moscow was the main point of an address steeped in hypocrisy.
We saw an earlier glimpse of this outspoken Obama in his wide-ranging interview with the Atlantic magazine last April, in which he expressed his frustrations with obstacles put in his way by the Washington foreign policy elite. But at the U.N. he went full bore. He uncharacteristically criticized his own country before both allies and perceived enemies for the way the U.S. had at times used its power in the world.
"Power hasn't been unipolar for most of history," he said. "The end of the Cold War has allowed many to forget this. America's adversaries and some of its allies believe all problems are caused by and can be solved by Washington. Too many in Washington believe that too.
"I do not think that America can -- or should -- impose our system of government on other countries," he said. "As leaders of democratic governments make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to set a better example at home."
Challenging Capitalism
While asserting that the United States has been, on balance, a force for good, Obama recognized that there are legitimate complaints about how the recent era of "globalization" has affected many people around the world and he cited shortcomings of modern capitalism.
"Twenty-five years after the Cold War the world is less violent and more prosperous and yet there is uncertainty and strife," he said.
A world in which "one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable," Obama said. Advanced communications have made vast numbers of people painfully aware of this, and legitimately resentful, he said.
"Expectations rise, then, faster than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice undermines people's faith in the system" he said, adding that this problem can't be fixed by going back to planned economies but he acknowledged that the "excesses of capitalism" are not the answer either.
There is another path, he said. "It doesn't require succumbing to soulless capitalism," but instead "we must recognize that closing the inequality gap and bringing economic growth that is board-based" is what's needed.
He called for rebuilding trade unions and "investing in our people and strengthening safety nets so people can take more risks." This wasn't charity, he said, but what was necessary to create a stable world economy with the requisite foundation of social justice.
Obama offered a defense of the U.S., but he dispensed with the usual verbiage about "indispensable nation." While the U.S. had made mistakes, he said, it had worked to create higher standards for the world banking system to rein in the "excesses of capitalism." It is rare to hear a U.S. president mention the word "capitalism," let alone in such a negative light.
"While open markets and capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage," he said.
"In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers."
He said "global capital is too often unaccountable -- nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective oversight. ..."
"I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new ... but technology now allows any person with a smart-phone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others."
Obama's concern seemed to be how to avoid a world-wide revolt.
Surreal Tone
But the speech took on a surreal tone when contrasted with the reality of Obama's eight years in office. Listening to the thoughtful elements of his address, some might have wondered why the President hadn't acted in accord with these concerns throughout his two terms in office.
Instead, Obama was a president who bailed out the bankers and jailed the whistleblowers. While the Wall Street bankers whose reckless behavior crashed the world's economy skated from accountability (along with Bush administration officials who rationalized torture), Obama used the Espionage Act more times than all his predecessors combined to prosecute people inside the government who tried to expose wrongdoing.
Obama was a president who upheld the neoliberal economic order; signed a bill that would allow the military to make arrests on U.S. soil; engaged in his own disastrous "regime change" in Libya; and supported the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria that would turn into the Islamic State.
He was a president of drone strikes against civilians; and coups in Ukraine and Honduras; a president who continued NATO's march to Russia's borders; oversaw vast illegal surveillance of American citizens and a president who backed a global trade deal, the TPP, that will complete the corporate coup d'etat (though he bizarrely said at the U.N. that it would protect workers' rights and the environment.)
If this address was any indication of what's to come, Obama will become very successful -- as an ex-president.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The Barack Obama of 2008 reemerged at the United Nations on Tuesday, bookending his presidency with an uplifting address somewhat critical of American power and calling for an end to economic inequality at home and abroad.
The speech revealed the president that Obama might have been - and that many people had hoped for - if he had successfully confronted the American Deep State. But he waited until his farewell U.N. address, much like Dwight Eisenhower did with his Farewell Address in 1961 warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, to say what he really thought without having to suffer the full consequences inside the Beltway.
Obama didn't mention the word "exceptional" once as he has in his past U.N. speeches, and he kept his distorted criticism of Russia and China to a minimum. (He briefly tried to say the U.S. was not behind the Ukraine coup.) Last year, bashing Beijing and Moscow was the main point of an address steeped in hypocrisy.
We saw an earlier glimpse of this outspoken Obama in his wide-ranging interview with the Atlantic magazine last April, in which he expressed his frustrations with obstacles put in his way by the Washington foreign policy elite. But at the U.N. he went full bore. He uncharacteristically criticized his own country before both allies and perceived enemies for the way the U.S. had at times used its power in the world.
"Power hasn't been unipolar for most of history," he said. "The end of the Cold War has allowed many to forget this. America's adversaries and some of its allies believe all problems are caused by and can be solved by Washington. Too many in Washington believe that too.
"I do not think that America can -- or should -- impose our system of government on other countries," he said. "As leaders of democratic governments make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to set a better example at home."
Challenging Capitalism
While asserting that the United States has been, on balance, a force for good, Obama recognized that there are legitimate complaints about how the recent era of "globalization" has affected many people around the world and he cited shortcomings of modern capitalism.
"Twenty-five years after the Cold War the world is less violent and more prosperous and yet there is uncertainty and strife," he said.
A world in which "one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable," Obama said. Advanced communications have made vast numbers of people painfully aware of this, and legitimately resentful, he said.
"Expectations rise, then, faster than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice undermines people's faith in the system" he said, adding that this problem can't be fixed by going back to planned economies but he acknowledged that the "excesses of capitalism" are not the answer either.
There is another path, he said. "It doesn't require succumbing to soulless capitalism," but instead "we must recognize that closing the inequality gap and bringing economic growth that is board-based" is what's needed.
He called for rebuilding trade unions and "investing in our people and strengthening safety nets so people can take more risks." This wasn't charity, he said, but what was necessary to create a stable world economy with the requisite foundation of social justice.
Obama offered a defense of the U.S., but he dispensed with the usual verbiage about "indispensable nation." While the U.S. had made mistakes, he said, it had worked to create higher standards for the world banking system to rein in the "excesses of capitalism." It is rare to hear a U.S. president mention the word "capitalism," let alone in such a negative light.
"While open markets and capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage," he said.
"In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers."
He said "global capital is too often unaccountable -- nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective oversight. ..."
"I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new ... but technology now allows any person with a smart-phone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others."
Obama's concern seemed to be how to avoid a world-wide revolt.
Surreal Tone
But the speech took on a surreal tone when contrasted with the reality of Obama's eight years in office. Listening to the thoughtful elements of his address, some might have wondered why the President hadn't acted in accord with these concerns throughout his two terms in office.
Instead, Obama was a president who bailed out the bankers and jailed the whistleblowers. While the Wall Street bankers whose reckless behavior crashed the world's economy skated from accountability (along with Bush administration officials who rationalized torture), Obama used the Espionage Act more times than all his predecessors combined to prosecute people inside the government who tried to expose wrongdoing.
Obama was a president who upheld the neoliberal economic order; signed a bill that would allow the military to make arrests on U.S. soil; engaged in his own disastrous "regime change" in Libya; and supported the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria that would turn into the Islamic State.
He was a president of drone strikes against civilians; and coups in Ukraine and Honduras; a president who continued NATO's march to Russia's borders; oversaw vast illegal surveillance of American citizens and a president who backed a global trade deal, the TPP, that will complete the corporate coup d'etat (though he bizarrely said at the U.N. that it would protect workers' rights and the environment.)
If this address was any indication of what's to come, Obama will become very successful -- as an ex-president.
The Barack Obama of 2008 reemerged at the United Nations on Tuesday, bookending his presidency with an uplifting address somewhat critical of American power and calling for an end to economic inequality at home and abroad.
The speech revealed the president that Obama might have been - and that many people had hoped for - if he had successfully confronted the American Deep State. But he waited until his farewell U.N. address, much like Dwight Eisenhower did with his Farewell Address in 1961 warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, to say what he really thought without having to suffer the full consequences inside the Beltway.
Obama didn't mention the word "exceptional" once as he has in his past U.N. speeches, and he kept his distorted criticism of Russia and China to a minimum. (He briefly tried to say the U.S. was not behind the Ukraine coup.) Last year, bashing Beijing and Moscow was the main point of an address steeped in hypocrisy.
We saw an earlier glimpse of this outspoken Obama in his wide-ranging interview with the Atlantic magazine last April, in which he expressed his frustrations with obstacles put in his way by the Washington foreign policy elite. But at the U.N. he went full bore. He uncharacteristically criticized his own country before both allies and perceived enemies for the way the U.S. had at times used its power in the world.
"Power hasn't been unipolar for most of history," he said. "The end of the Cold War has allowed many to forget this. America's adversaries and some of its allies believe all problems are caused by and can be solved by Washington. Too many in Washington believe that too.
"I do not think that America can -- or should -- impose our system of government on other countries," he said. "As leaders of democratic governments make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to set a better example at home."
Challenging Capitalism
While asserting that the United States has been, on balance, a force for good, Obama recognized that there are legitimate complaints about how the recent era of "globalization" has affected many people around the world and he cited shortcomings of modern capitalism.
"Twenty-five years after the Cold War the world is less violent and more prosperous and yet there is uncertainty and strife," he said.
A world in which "one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable," Obama said. Advanced communications have made vast numbers of people painfully aware of this, and legitimately resentful, he said.
"Expectations rise, then, faster than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice undermines people's faith in the system" he said, adding that this problem can't be fixed by going back to planned economies but he acknowledged that the "excesses of capitalism" are not the answer either.
There is another path, he said. "It doesn't require succumbing to soulless capitalism," but instead "we must recognize that closing the inequality gap and bringing economic growth that is board-based" is what's needed.
He called for rebuilding trade unions and "investing in our people and strengthening safety nets so people can take more risks." This wasn't charity, he said, but what was necessary to create a stable world economy with the requisite foundation of social justice.
Obama offered a defense of the U.S., but he dispensed with the usual verbiage about "indispensable nation." While the U.S. had made mistakes, he said, it had worked to create higher standards for the world banking system to rein in the "excesses of capitalism." It is rare to hear a U.S. president mention the word "capitalism," let alone in such a negative light.
"While open markets and capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage," he said.
"In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers."
He said "global capital is too often unaccountable -- nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective oversight. ..."
"I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new ... but technology now allows any person with a smart-phone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others."
Obama's concern seemed to be how to avoid a world-wide revolt.
Surreal Tone
But the speech took on a surreal tone when contrasted with the reality of Obama's eight years in office. Listening to the thoughtful elements of his address, some might have wondered why the President hadn't acted in accord with these concerns throughout his two terms in office.
Instead, Obama was a president who bailed out the bankers and jailed the whistleblowers. While the Wall Street bankers whose reckless behavior crashed the world's economy skated from accountability (along with Bush administration officials who rationalized torture), Obama used the Espionage Act more times than all his predecessors combined to prosecute people inside the government who tried to expose wrongdoing.
Obama was a president who upheld the neoliberal economic order; signed a bill that would allow the military to make arrests on U.S. soil; engaged in his own disastrous "regime change" in Libya; and supported the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria that would turn into the Islamic State.
He was a president of drone strikes against civilians; and coups in Ukraine and Honduras; a president who continued NATO's march to Russia's borders; oversaw vast illegal surveillance of American citizens and a president who backed a global trade deal, the TPP, that will complete the corporate coup d'etat (though he bizarrely said at the U.N. that it would protect workers' rights and the environment.)
If this address was any indication of what's to come, Obama will become very successful -- as an ex-president.
Paul Schwiep, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, described the judge's ruling as "a temporary but appropriate pause on any further destruction of a sensitive area."
A federal judge on Thursday ordered a temporary halt to the construction of an immigrant detention center being built in the Florida Everglades dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz."
The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has order that all construction at the facility be halted for the next 14 days, although the government can continue to operate the center and detain immigrants there.
The judge's ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by the local Miccosukee Tribe and some environmental organizations who had argued that further construction at the site risked damage to protected wetlands nearby.
"The crux of the plaintiffs' argument is that the detention facility violates the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of major construction projects," wrote the AP.
Florida attorney Jesse Panuccio, representing the state, argued that the facility shouldn't be subject to this federal law because it is entirely under the control of the Florida state government. However, Williams rejected this argument and said that the detention center was at the very least a joint operation between Florida and the federal government given that it was handling people detained by the federal government.
Florida officials have outlined ambitions to double the capacity of the current facility, according to The New York Times.
Paul Schwiep, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, described the judge's ruling as "a temporary but appropriate pause on any further destruction of a sensitive area, to allow the parties to present their evidence and arguments on the preliminary injunction request" that would potentially permanently halt construction at the site.
The facility was first announced earlier this summer when Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier unveiled a plan to renovate the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport and transform it into a mass detention center for immigrants. During a press event touting the new facility last month, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis boasted that detainees being held there had little hope of ever escaping given that it was surrounded by miles of alligator-infested swamps.
The center has drawn criticism from human rights groups as well as from Democrats who visited the facility last month. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), one of the lawmakers to visit the facility, said afterward that "what I saw made my heart sink," referring to the conditions where detainees are being held.
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," argued one Greenpeace campaigner.
With representatives from 175 nations gathered in Geneva, Switzerland for the final round of talks on a global plastics treaty, Greenpeace campaigners on Thursday created a symbolic trail of black oil and hung massive banners over the entrance to the event venue demanding the expulsion of fossil fuel industry lobbyists from the summit.
Greenpeace said 22 activists from 10 European nations climbed to the roof of the Palais des Nations, where the United Nations conference is taking place, to unfurl banners reading "Big Oil Polluting Inside" and "Plastics Treaty Not for Sale."
The environmental advocacy group said that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumbered scientists 4-to-1 at the talks.
"Each round of negotiations brings more oil and gas lobbyists into the room," Graham Forbes, who is leading Greenpeace's delegation to the summit, said in a statement. "Fossil fuel and petrochemical giants are polluting the negotiations from the inside, and we're calling on the U.N. to kick them out."
"Governments must not let a handful of backwards-looking fossil fuel companies override the clear call from all of civil society—including Indigenous peoples, frontline communities, youth activists, and many responsible businesses—demanding a strong agreement that cuts plastic production," Forbes added.
The huge presence of these plastic-loving lobbyists threatens the Global Plastics Treaty.They don’t want real solutions, all they want is more profits.Tell the UN to kick them out of the plastics talks now👇act.gp/4licpMq
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace UK (@greenpeaceuk.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 8:55 AM
In 2022, participating nations agreed to draft a legally binding global treaty to reduce waste and toxic chemicals in some plastics contain; however, no such agreement has been reached.
"It is clear that the plastics treaty negotiators have a mountain to climb to reach an agreement by August 14th," Friends of the Earth International said Tuesday, referring to the summit's end date. "There remain substantive differences between the vast majority of states that want action and the few blockers looking to prolong the era of plastics."
There is strong opposition to curbing plastic production from the fossil fuel industry—99% of plastic is made from petrochemicals—and oil-producing countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
Reuters reported Wednesday that the Trump administration sent letters to some countries participating in the Geneva talks urging them to reject "impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products."
Oil producer pressure, Trump rollbacks threaten global treaty on plastics pollution. Plastics are derived from fossil fuels. www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 6:46 AM
Greenpeace noted that "the fossil fuel industry and its political allies are pushing hard to weaken the treaty's ambition."
According to the group:
If they succeed, plastic production could triple by 2050, fueling more environmental destruction, climate chaos, and harm to human health. A recent report from Greenpeace U.K. revealed that companies like Dow, ExxonMobil, BASF, Chevron Phillips, Shell, SABIC, and INEOS continue to ramp up plastic production. Since the global plastics treaty process began in November 2022, these seven companies have expanded plastic production capacity by 1.4 million tons. Over the same time period, they have also produced enough plastic to fill an estimated 6.3 million garbage trucks, or five-and-a-half trucks every minute. These companies also reaped enormous profits, with Dow alone earning an estimated US$5.1 billion from plastics, while sending at least 21 lobbyists into treaty negotiations.
A study published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in "health-related economic losses" worldwide annually.
"These impacts fall disproportionately upon low-income and at-risk populations," the study's authors wrote. "The principal driver of this crisis is accelerating growth in plastic production—from 2 megatons (Mt) in 1950, to 475 Mt in 2022; that is projected to be 1,200 Mt by 2060."
Friends of the Earth International campaigner Sam Cossar-Gilbert noted that "coastlines across the Global South are drowning in plastic waste that isn't ours."
"Shipped in from wealthy nations under the guise of 'recycling,' the plastic waste trade forces marginalized communities to absorb the consequences of someone else's convenience," he added. "This is not just environmental degradation—it's environmental injustice. We refuse to accept false solutions that sacrifice frontline communities and the environment."
Forbes asserted that "this is a battle for our survival."
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," he added. "Governments must show courage and deliver a strong treaty that puts people and planet first, not short-term corporate profits."
"They're talking about occupying areas that are packed with so many people," said one Palestinian civilian. "If they do that, there will be incalculable killing."
Ahead of a meeting with his security ministers, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed once again Thursday that his government plans to take control of the entire Gaza Strip—"a direct assault on international law," as one group said this week, and one that his own military leaders have opposed.
In an interview with Fox News, Netanyahu was asked whether his government aims to take over all of Gaza, 75% of which it now claims to control, as officials have stated this week.
"We intend to," the prime minister said, saying his country would take control of the enclave "in order to assure our security, remove Hamas there, enable the population to be free of Gaza, and to pass it to civilian governance that is not Hamas and not anyone advocating the destruction of Israel."
Netanyahu convened a security meeting after the interview, seeking approval for his plan to expand Israel's offensive in Gaza to areas in the central part of the territory where hostages are believed to be held, which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have largely avoided since it began bombarding Gaza in October 2023.
The assault has forcibly displaced nearly the entire population of 2.1 million Palestinians, killed more than 61,000, and injured more than 150,000 as Israel's near-total blockade has pushed the enclave toward famine and starved to death nearly 200 people, including at least 96 children.
The prime minister did not delve into specifics about the plan, but claimed Israel does not "want to govern" Gaza.
"We don't want to be there as a governing body," he said. "We want to hand it over to Arab forces."
IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has expressed opposition to the proposal, and three military officials told The New York Times Thursday that the military would prefer a new cease-fire deal rather than intensifying fighting.
Cease-fire talks between Hamas and Israel have recently hit a deadlock.
Setting up a system of occupation in Gaza like the one Israel controls in the West Bank would take "up to five years of sustained combat," officials told the Times.
Muhammad Shehada, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, explained how Netanyahu and his Cabinet, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, likely plan to carry out "the final phase of the genocide" in Gaza, having recently set aside funds "for winning the war" in the enclave.
"Israel will move to annihilate the three remaining areas that haven't been wiped out fully yet: Gaza City, Deir Al-Balah, and the central refugee camps (i.e. Nuseirat)," said Shehada. "Those three areas have been heavily bombed, invaded by the IDF, shelled nonstop but they have not been depopulated and fully razed to the ground like Rafah, Khan Younis, Jabaliya, Beit Hanoun, etc."
Palestinian-American analyst Yousef Munayyer denounced Netanyahu's stated plan as "stupid, criminal, and horrifying."
Palestinians have expressed fears this week that the latest Israeli proposal would kill far more civilians in Gaza as the IDF moves into areas where hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to move.
"They're talking about occupying areas that are packed with so many people," Mukhlis al-Masri, a 34-year-old Palestinian who fled to Khan Younis from his home in northern Gaza, told the Times. "If they do that, there will be incalculable killing. The situation will be more dangerous than anyone can imagine."
Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst on Israel at the International Crisis Group, said Netanyahu's comments on Thursday included "a slip, but a revealing one": that Israel wants to "enable the population to be free of Gaza" following the IDF's decimation of the enclave.
"Netanyahu's threat to 'take control' of all of Gaza is like his threat in 2020 to annex the West Bank," said Zonszein. "Israel already controls and destroyed most of Gaza, and already de facto annexed the West Bank. So while Palestinians will suffer more, Israeli strategy hasn't changed one bit."