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.
As in 1989, it was not the military prowess of the western alliance bringing freedom to an Eastern European country, but the power of nonviolent action by the subjugated peoples themselves.
Global poverty today is no longer a legacy of the past; the new global poverty is not only the direct consequence of globalization, but an integral part of it.
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.
President Clinton's September 1st decision to delay deployment of the Pentagon's proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) system is an example of good policy and good politics.
Despite years of UN-bashing in Washington, the global organization remains one of the most popular institutions among U.S. voters.
The U.S. must recognize that preventive actions -- diplomacy, contributing to global economic development, promoting political and religious freedom -- that get to the root causes of conflict are the long-term paths to global peace and stability.
One progressive's recount of the Republican National Convention.
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.