• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Who Obstructs Peace?

Jeremy Hammond vs. the Official Narrative

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been framed in Western media and policy circles as a tragic but intractable dispute in which Israel seeks peace while Arab actors—whether states or Palestinians—persistently reject compromise. This conventional narrative assigns primary blame to Arab intransigence, Palestinian terrorism, and the failure of Arab leaders to accept generous Israeli offers. Yet a contrasting and meticulously documented perspective is presented by Jeremy R. Hammond in his 2016 book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. According to Hammond, the United States, far from being an impartial broker of peace, has functioned consistently as a primary enabler of Israeli occupation and a systematic obstacle to a just solution.

This essay contrasts Hammond's critique with the dominant Israeli and American policy narratives, revealing a deeper structure of power, misinformation, and asymmetry that underpins the conflict and blocks its resolution.

I. The Official Narrative: Israel as Seeker of Peace, Arabs as Rejectionists

The standard Israeli and American account of the conflict follows a predictable arc:

• 1947: The UN proposes partition; Jews accept, Arabs reject.
• 1948: Israel declares independence; Arab states attack.
• 1967: Israel wins a defensive war and offers land for peace; Arab states respond with the "Three No's" (Khartoum Resolution).
• 2000: Ehud Barak offers Palestinians a state at Camp David; Yasser Arafat walks away.
• Ongoing: Israel faces terrorism from Hamas and Palestinian factions while repeatedly making peace overtures.

In this telling, the repeated rejections of peace proposals and waves of terrorism define the Arab role, while Israel is portrayed as willing but perpetually spurned. The United States, meanwhile, appears as a benevolent mediator attempting to bridge the gap between the parties.

This narrative dominates mainstream media coverage and is reinforced by U.S. foreign policy statements. It underpins billions of dollars in annual U.S. military aid to Israel and serves as the justification for diplomatic protection of Israel in international forums like the UN Security Council.

II. Jeremy Hammond's Counter-Narrative: The U.S. as the Real Obstacle

Hammond's Obstacle to Peace dismantles this mainstream framing point by point, arguing that it is not Palestinian rejectionism, but U.S. complicity and Israeli intransigence that perpetuate the conflict. His argument centers around four main claims:

1. The U.S. is Not a Neutral Broker

Despite presenting itself as an impartial mediator, the United States consistently:

• Blocks UN resolutions critical of Israel, even when those resolutions are grounded in international law.
• Funds Israeli occupation through unconditional aid, regardless of settlement expansion or human rights abuses.
• Frames negotiations in a way that sidelines Palestinian rights, treating them as bargaining chips rather than legal entitlements.

2. Israel's “Peace Process” is a Strategy of Delay

Hammond argues that Israel uses the "peace process" not to achieve peace, but to:

• Buy time to expand settlements, creating irreversible facts on the ground.
• Avoid international pressure by appearing to negotiate while changing the status quo.
• Divide Palestinian leadership (e.g., supporting Fatah while isolating Hamas) to weaken the national movement.

3. The Oslo Process Entrenched Occupation

Rather than lead to a Palestinian state, the Oslo Accords created a façade of autonomy while preserving full Israeli control over borders, airspace, and movement. The Palestinian Authority (PA) became an enforcer of occupation, dependent on donor funding and constrained from challenging Israeli policy.

4. Historical and Legal Context is Systematically Ignored

Hammond emphasizes that:

• The 1948 Nakba (ethnic cleansing of Palestinians) is whitewashed in U.S. discourse.
• International law—including the Geneva Conventions and numerous UN resolutions—is routinely ignored in favor of bilateral negotiations under U.S. auspices, where Israel holds all the cards.

III. Contrasting Logics: Strategic Power vs. Moral Legitimacy

Hammond reframes the entire discourse: instead of Israel being surrounded by existential enemies, it is a powerful occupying force, shielded by a global superpower, imposing its will on a stateless and fragmented Palestinian population.

IV. Implications for Peace

If Hammond is right, then peace will not come through more of the same: backroom negotiations under U.S. sponsorship, “security” arrangements that favor the occupier, or normalization deals with Arab autocracies. Instead, peace would require:

• Ending the occupation and dismantling settlements.

• Enforcing international law, including the right of return or compensation for refugees.

• Reimagining U.S. policy to align with justice rather than geopolitics.

But such a shift is unlikely without a transformation in public understanding, especially in the West, where the myth of U.S. neutrality continues to dominate discourse.

Conclusion: Toward an Honest Reckoning

Jeremy Hammond's Obstacle to Peace is a crucial intervention in the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By focusing on the role of the United States—not merely as a passive actor but as an active accomplice—Hammond challenges us to rethink the terms of engagement. In contrast to the dominant narrative that frames Israel as constantly thwarted in its search for peace, Hammond reveals a system designed to perpetuate occupation while blaming the victims.

Understanding the conflict means looking beyond the headlines, beyond the official statements, and beyond the simplistic binaries. It means acknowledging power imbalances, historical trauma, and the ways in which international diplomacy has been co-opted to sustain injustice. Only then can we begin to speak honestly about peace.