Clinton’s Unpromising Start (Ramzy Baroud)

[Tace]

Ramzy Baroud -- World News Trust

May 1, 2009 -- Incongruous. One can hardly think of a more suited term to describe the new U.S. administration's approach to peacemaking in the Middle East. Though there is little evidence that previous U.S. administrations had genuinely attempted to play a balanced role in forging a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, many hoped -- and a few still hope -- that Barack Obama's administration would bring about new standards.

However, if recent comments made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffice as a general indication of the administration's Middle East policy, then little change is on the horizon.

Clinton told U.S. legislators April 23 that the key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was Tehran; that without getting tough on Iran, Israel could not be expected to pursue peace with the Palestinians. "The two go hand in hand," she emphasized. What a baffling approach to peacemaking. In order for peace to prevail, Israel should engage Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority in "discussions" aimed at inspiring the isolation of Iran, for reasons entirely pertinent to US interests and Israeli "security."

While Clinton's approach rests on luring Israel into her proposed peace discussions, what is Clinton's promise to the Palestinians, the Arabs, and indeed Iran but endless chatter, a regional cold war and sectarian divisions? Hasn't the Middle East seen enough of that? Is it not time to relegate such detrimental language and focus on positive engagement, regional stability and economic cooperation?

more

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/wnt-reports/commentary/clinton%E2%80%99s-unpromising-start-ramzy-baroud.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. Unpromising only to Palestine Firsters like Baroud.

[Still Sensible]

2. I think he is way off base.

IMO I believe the secretary of state simply spoke the truth. That is, nothing can be advanced on peaceful coexistence between Israel and their Palestinian citizens so long as Iran is saber rattling. But it is all deeply ingrained Middle East politics on all sides. The way Israeli leaders get elected is to act and talk tough with the other two. The way Palestinian and Iranian leaders get elected is to act and talk tough with Israel.

The administration is also standing firmly at a two-state solution, which most believe is the only way to peace in the region. But of course, Netanyahu just got maneuvered into power (it was a screwy parliamentary coalition that put the right winger in after his party didn't get even a plurality) and his people are saying they will block that approach.

Unfortunately all of those in power in the region gain and hold onto that power by keeping their voters scared (sound vaguely familiar?). There are so many factions on all sides with a vested interest in keeping the centuries old conflicts going... and it is not simply the political power, it's the financial power as well.