Regions / Israel
The United States should certainly maintain its commitment to Israelâs legitimate security needs. What needs to be questioned is the Clinton administrationâs support for Israelâs ongoing occupation and its violations of basic human rights.
If there is to be peace in the Middle East, the United States must exercise some "tough love."
There is a widespread assumption that resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is an extremely complex issue, and that the United States has been and is the best hope for peace. The reality, however, is just the opposite.
It is highly unlikely that the upcoming summit between the United States, Israel, and Palestine at Camp David will the kind of positive results that came from the 1978 summit between the United States, Israel, and Egypt.
The problem with Clinton's view of Jerusalem is ultimately not a bias towards Israel, but a direct challenge to the authority of the United Nations and some of the most basic tenets of international law.
As the Clinton Administration pushes for a high-level resumption of final status talks between Israelis and Palestinians, we are again hearing the mantra that both sides need to compromise, both sides cannot have everything they want and other familiar ex
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's decision to pull out of the peace talks with Syria is a shameless capitulation to Israel's far right and raises serious questions as to whether the Israeli government is seriously interested in peace.
There is little hope for real progress in the Israeli-Syrian peace talks unless the Clinton Administration is willing to uphold human rights and international law.
Washington's goals in the Middle East involve support for Israel, assuring oil flow, and ensuring political stability for economic growth.
The special nature of the U.S.-Israel alliance has resulted in special protection of and impunity for Israel in international arenas.