For the sake of peace, Israel will have to maintain its sovereignty as a nation, regardless of the conditions by which that sovereignty was acquired.  However, also for the sake of peace, something must change with regards to how Israel maintains that sovereignty.  It cannot continue to conduct its military operations and Apartheid-like practices unabated, with no accountability.

I fail to understand what seems to be the infallibility of Israel – how those voices who speak out against the country’s practices are either a quiet minority or a few violent pockets of militancy.  How is it that most of the world seems to offer either tacit approval or feign blissful ignorance as Israel has continued throughout its history to perpetrate a plethora of human rights violations and countless other offenses?

I could be wrong, and it may be that I simply cannot hear the voices speaking out against Israel because they are censored – i.e. simply not covered – by the media.  Either way, I wonder what exactly Israel would have to do before the mainstream voice becomes one of opposition to Israel rather than one of quiet complicity.

Today the Associated Press reports that the Israeli Defense Forces, in their continuing incursion into Gaza, attacked the United Nations headquarters, destroying large supplies of food intended for the suffering Palestinians.  That, along with a hospital, five high-rise apartment buildings and a media outlet, appear to be the latest in a list of targets that have nothing to do with Hamas and the stated purpose of the offensive.

This raises the question of whether or not Israel is simply incompetent – in killing more civilians than soldiers and “accidentally” destroying benign civilian infrastructure – or merely careless and arrogant in its apparent infallibility.  Interestingly enough, the associated press article goes on to reiterate the purpose of the Israeli offensive:

[A]n effort to stop militant rocket fire from Gaza that has terrorized hundreds of thousands of Israelis.

In characteristic fashion, in the same virtual breath as it reports an obvious offense on the part of Israel, the press seems to want to justify it by overstating the causes.  “Hundreds of thousands” of Israelis are being terrorized by Hamas rockets?  Really?  The latest reports say that altogether Israel has had thirteen casualties – three of which were civilians killed by the rockets, the others Israeli soldiers who fell during the ground offensive.  Three of those were killed by friendly fire – perhaps further evidence of incompetence.

No loss of innocent life should be dismissed as insignificant, but there is a matter of proportionality to be discussed here.  Hamas, in spite of representing a legitimately aggrieved Palestinian citizenry, was misguided in launching its rockets.  However, they also appear to be quite inept, failing to hit any meaningful targets.  Israel, who has them out-manned, out-gunned, and seems to have the moral imperative of “infallibility”, has killed as many as 1,100 Palestinians, more than half of which have been civilians – and too many of which have been children.  There simply is no argument that can be made to justify Israel’s exaggerated response to the utterly ineffective actions of Hamas.

That Hamas continues to launch rockets – and continues to miss everything that matters – shows not only the kind of illogical reasoning that inspires terrorism, but the clear sense of desperation felt by the Palestinian people.  It can be only foolish pride or a sense of having nothing more to lose that an organization would invite upon itself complete annihilation.  Either that, or a desperate last ditch appeal to the world community to pay attention to the chronic injustices that continue to plague the people of the Gaza strip.

But that plea continues to be ignored due to the self-victimization of Israel – affirmed by the mainstream press corps – and the infallibility license extended by the rest of the world.  If the United States can be maligned by the global community for the ill-motivated war in Iraq, then why can’t that same sense of right and wrong be applied to Israel?  What is it about that little country that gives it carte blanche authority to violate every established moral and legal convention of the civilized world?  And what is it that makes us – the rest of the world – so complicit?

It must be the power of infallibility.

First of all, Obama himself is not progressive enough for me in his stated foreign policy objectives, but Clinton is notably even more hawkish than he is. One of the concerns that arose during her presidential candidacy was that leaders around the world – especially in countries with gender equality issues – would by default regard her with less respect than a male candidate. While this is indicative of the global problem of patriarchy and chauvinism, and no fault of Mrs. Clinton herself, it was still a reality she would’ve had to face had she been elected.

My fear was that her response to this kind of discrimination and low regard would be to become even more aggressive in her foreign policy in order to demonstrate that she is not someone to be taken lightly. And she certainly isn’t. However, in a climate where the U.S. is beset by two wars and mired in global anti-American sentiment, Obama’s forthcoming administration seems to signal the possibility for a real shift in our place in the world. To assign someone with a chip on her shoulder and an established penchant for aggression as the vanguard for foreign relations would seem to me to undermine this potential shift.

Hillary Clinton is an individual of enormous talent and ability, and there is no question that she should have a place in this new administration. But it seems to me that she would be better suited to domestic issues – and no, there is no chauvinistic suggestion intended there – such as overseeing a new healthcare policy. Not only is she qualified to do it, but it has been her personal cause since the early ’90s.

So Mr. Obama, in spite of any speculation that this would be a third slight to Mrs. Clinton, please do not select her for the Secretary of State. We need a different kind of presence abroad – that is, someone with nothing to prove. On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton’s hawkish temerity would be perfect for facing down the healthcare and pharmaceutical lobbies, which have already started to move against any changes in the current system.