So, while Dr. Stein’s rhetorical criticism of Israel is harsh, so long as the US keeps funding the Israeli military occupation, there will be little meaningful change on the ground. Under the proposal Stein put forth, Israel could continue its frequent and devastating attacks and point to Hamas’ inability to stop one group or another from lobbing homemade rockets towards Sderot. No change here.
Of course, given the lock that the two major parties have on the electoral system, any discussion of policy under a Stein administration is purely hypothetical. Still, there would be considerable value in a presidential candidate calling for cutting off foreign aid to Israel and an end to the siege of Gaza in unqualified and unconditional terms, which Stein does not seem prepared to do.
It is possible that she drafted this proposal in haste and simply did not think it through. If that is the case, she should withdraw her policy and draft one that truly promotes the causes of peace and justice."
Obama is more articulate than Bush, but they both talk of war not as a way of settling a particular dispute (of war as its resolution) but of maintaining sovereign peace through a continuing process of extermination.
In this respect both administrations are similar, and their similarity derives from the fact that they are both embedded in the same political-financial-military system. Their ability to move independently is therefore limited - but by no means absent."