In Obama's speech at the UN he spent a great deal of time trying to explain why he believes Palestine should not negotiate through the UN in any manner, even though Israel was created through the UN as well.
Obama's speech had so little substance that he sounded like a broken record...
"Peace is hard, unlike winning the Nobel Peace Prize which is surprisingly easy"
Are discussions important? Yes. But to do that only through negotiations between a tiny super power (Israel is extremely strong and can take care of itself) and its occupied lands can't possibly be called an equal or fair negotiation table.
Fortunately, Obama's strange stance on the Israel-Palestine issue can be easily explained by tracing where the roots of the new rhetoric comes from and shinning a light on who these power sources are. Once done, you may agree with me that Israel is better off without any interference from the United States on foreign policy (in any sense whatsoever).
From BBC: Barack Obama has told the UN General Assembly the Palestinians deserve their own state, but that this would only be achieved through talks with Israel.
Obama is clearly following Republican/GOP rhetoric...
Rick Perry: "Palestinian statehood must be established only through direct negotiations between the Palestinian leadership and the nation of Israel."
To understand why it's bad for any country to get too involved with United States foreign policy can be explained by studying the Republican power structure which is controlling Obama. Rick Perry is himself a slave to that system. (i.e. read the last 3 links carefully).
Palestine finds that, as with any good co-op, joining the U.N. requires getting past that one hard-ass on the co-op board who always shoots people down.
Notes - 1. Each side doesn't acknowledge they other, 2. They have been fighting for, like, forever, 3. Obama/US wants Palestine to get a recommendation from "their mortal enemies" to get UN membership (in contrast to North Korea or Syria).
Palestinians and Jews working together, in the present and historically, is not something you hear allot about in the media;
Anna Baltzer and Mustafa Barghouti advocate a non-violent approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this complete, unedited interview...
Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1
Part 2 of Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti interview:
'The US is too biased to one side and this isn't good for Israel'
A pro-Israel Lobby you don't hear about in the media...
Interview: Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of the pro-Israel lobby J Street, discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestine's application for full U.N. membership....
Israel came into being by a UN mandate so its only fair that the Palestinians do too.
Ben Ami is taking a mainstream approach as that's necessary for his political position (Israel on one side and a right-wing Obama administration on the other)
From the Washington Post:
Ben-Ami provides an arsenal of logistical and moral arguments stressing that not only is Israel’s occupation over another people a threat to the Zionist dream and American interests in the region, but that it also runs counter to rabbinic values — indeed, even to the very letter of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which promises equality to all, regardless of race, religion or gender. In short, he tells us that Israel is on the brink of becoming an “apartheid state” and losing its status as a moral beacon to the Jewish people and the safe and democratic haven its pioneers intended it to be.
Ben-Ami argues that by taking a radically conciliatory pro-peace position today instead of the stance represented by the conservative AIPAC, the American Jewish community would serve Israel’s interests far better — paradoxically, just as the radically militant policy pursued by his father, Yitshaq (whom Ben-Ami calls a “terrorist”), in Israel’s early days was exactly what was needed in order to ensure its creation: At the time, his father’s brand of Zionism ran counter to what was considered acceptable by the Jewish community.
Ben-Ami says that today’s Jewish voice in America should clearly call for an active American intervention in the Middle East that will bring about the end of occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state. How can this be done? He suggests that the American president, backed by the international community, must present a take-it-or-leave-it political package to the two sides. The basis already exists for this in various peace initiatives that call for making the pre-1967 armistice line a border between the two states and allowing for a one-to-one exchange of territory for reasons to do with security or demography. The resulting refugee problem could be addressed in any number of ways, including compensation, family reunification schemes and resettlement. Most of these plans also call for making Jerusalem a joint capital for the two states. President Clinton proposed a formula for sharing the city by having Arab neighborhoods come under Arab sovereignty, and Jewish neighborhoods under Jewish sovereignty.
US news media involvement in the flotilla incident can the UN called "excessive"...
Benjamin Netanyahu defends Israel's raid on a flotilla of activists bringing aid to the Gaza Strip...
The above is why Israel-Turkey relations are dead in the water and it makes the nagative image of the Israeilites amougnst the people of the region increase.
The Turks and many others have already contested the underlying logic of the Report, the central issue of which is the legitimacy of Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Sir Geoffrey Palmer and his colleagues concluded that 1) although Gaza is not a state, Israel and Gaza are in an international conflict; as a result 2) the Israelis’ claim that they have a right to self-defense in this situation is entirely legitimate, and 3) the naval blockade is an acceptable means to achieve that end. In order to reach these conclusions, Palmer et al affirmed Israel’s position that the naval blockade is fundamentally separate policy from the land cordon the Israelis established around Gaza since 2007.
Not being a lawyer, I may not be on firm ground here, but it seems pretty clear that Palmer’s report is correct that, while the conflict between Israel and Gaza may not meet the legal criteria for “international conflict,” politically there is no question that we are looking at what is, for all intents and purposes, an international conflict. (A conclusion, which although not legal, should nevertheless be important for advocates of Palestinian statehood.)
At the same time, Palmer’s conclusion that the naval blockade is a separate policy seems to be a bit shaky. It is based on the fact that this blockade was not established until January 3, 2009 more than a year after the imposition of the land closure. Yet, there is something that is too cute by a half about this reasoning. It is important to remember that the naval blockade also occurred during the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead, which was intended to bring a halt to rocket fire from Gaza into southern Israel. A laudable goal, but it also suggests that Palmer may be wrong in suggesting the “separateness” of the naval blockade. After all, that blockade was imposed as part of a military operation that was intended to do what the land closure was apparently failing to do. Under these circumstances, it seems that the naval blockade was an extension of or addition to an existing Israeli policy of preventing weapons, the raw materials for weapons along with a host of other goods that have nothing whatsoever to do with weapons, from being smuggled into Gaza.
The Palmer Report is thus not as clear-cut as either the Israelis who are declaring victory would suggest or the hopelessly politicized exercise that the Turks are claiming. The ironies here are almost too much to take, but what is done is done and the report, with whatever its faults, is a devastating blow to the Turkish narrative of the legal and political issues surrounding the incident (see pages 38-48, in particular). It has especially harsh words for the organizers of the flotilla and questions their intentions to actually deliver humanitarian aid. This is a political problem for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the reason why the Turks went on the offensive this week.
After all, wasn’t it a confident (righteous, even) Ankara that demanded a UN commission of inquiry in the belief that it would reinforce the Turkish narrative? Didn’t the Mavi Marmara incident and the events surrounding it help further Erdogan’s legend in the Arab world? Hasn’t Erdogan been minting political gold on the Palestinian issue? The answer to all of these questions is yes. The fact that the Palmer Report suggests that Israel may have screwed up the interception of the flotilla, used unnecessary force, and abused some of the passengers and crew is politically unsatisfying because the UN’s inquiry also states that the Israelis were within their legal rights to establish a naval blockade and enforce it.
Moments of Zen
1. Israel's present political situation suggests the people are ready for change, they just need a solution...
2. 253rd time Palestine and Israel sit down for peace talks and the firmest thing the US can do is extend negotiations?...
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appoints an "ambassador of death," while Hillary Clinton gives Israel and Palestine a firm deadline for peace.
3. Its obvious that the US has no influence in the Israel-Palestinian process in this video, at least, not from the Democrats...
Joe Biden punishes Israel for its plans to build more settlements by showing up late to dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
End of - The Case for Israel Being Better Off Without The "Help" of The United States