Politics in the Americas

President Obama's speech to the UN's 66th General Assembly addressed the Palestine Question with the position that Israel and Palestine must negotiate to achieve the very much sought after goal of U.N. Palestinian representation and peace between the two parties. It was a stance not much welcomed in the international community. It was also an approach the Obama administration had practiced before in the American region of Central America with Hondurus to resolve the conflict created from the Honduran military's June 2009 coup d'état. No doubt, Hondurus and Palestine can't be compared as similar, but the approach of the Obama administration's U.S. foreign policy to alleviate conflict in both countries can be compared.

A short recap of events: the Honduran military takes out democratically elected President Zelaya, then prepares for elections in a political milieu of repression against the people who revolt in anger. Throughout the process, human right violations are committed. The response of many American countries was strong and united. They did not acknowledge the interim military government; all but the U.S. whose stance was for the democratically elected, and now ousted, Zelaya to negotiate with its perpetrators. This U.S. stance gave legitimacy to a party which used violence and force against its own people to usurp and retain power. Washington treated the coup leaders as an equal player in negotiations to a democratically elected president.

Now, compare the U.S. approach to Hondurus in 2009 with the current issue at hand-- Palestinian recognition to the United Nations as a member state. The U.S. refuses to acknowledge Palestine in the U.N. and would rather have negotiations between the two conflicting parties. This stops Palestine from having recognition in the U.N. and gives Israel the upper hand in controlling the debate since without recognition Palestine has no access to the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. Many see the approach as very cynical, if not absurd. Cynical because some feel that the U.S. and Israel would like to continue endless fruitless negotiations. Absurd because some share the feelings of Egypt's message to this 66th assembly that negotiations can't be reached as long as Israel continues to construct settlements on Palestinian territories in the West Bank, blockade Gaza in violation of the provisions of international law, and alter the demographic features of occupied East Jerusalem.

An important issue of contention at this General Assembly was Palestine's inclusion as a member state, and President Obama had to defend the position of not giving in when it came time to vote in the Security Council. In preparation of defending his administration's veto, he gave facts about Israel which presented the country as a victim and then stated that it deserved recognition. He in effect was averting the issue.

Omitting facts and presentations prevented him from being honest with the world at large and himself. When said that Isreal deserves normal relations with its neighbors, no mention was made for why a nation like Turkey would discontinue such normal relations.

On September 2, 2011, Turkey expelled the ambassador of Israel after not receiving an apology for Israel's Armed Forces killing nine unarmed Turkey civilians on board of the Flotilla of Liberty in international waters on 2010 with the mission of providing humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza strip. Turkey saw Israel's actions as a crime against humanity. After having sent four Turkey delegations to Israel to solicit reparations to the victim's families and receive an apology, Israel ignored such requests. Afterwards, Turkey wasn't willing to accept normal relations without such apology and so the only thing to do was to expel the Israeli ambassador.

Presenting Israel as a victim in the conflict explains why it must defend itself and justifies its actions in the name of security. President Obama stated that "... any lasting peace must acknowledge the ... security concerns that Isreal faces ..." He omitted to acknowledge the victims of the victim -- Palestinians -- and what they don't need for any lasting peace.

Israel pre-emptively defends its security in a way that makes peace impossible for the region. It was for security concerns that they decided to attack the Flotilla of Liberty causing a break in diplomatic relations with Turkey. It was for security concerns that they attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan on the outset of their Six Day War. Now, It's for security concerns that they have atomic bombs. It's for security concerns that they are hoping foreign interventions in Libia and Syria turn out favorably. It feels so threatened by the Arab world. And now after the Arab Spring, the security concerns of Israel are far more greater. Israel is so concerned with security that it makes for very difficult negotiations, if not impossible.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu makes clear of his fear of having an impure Israel when he says that "[t]he Palestinian leadership refuses to confront its people and say this will be our state Palestine, and any Palestinian can go there. We also want, they say, millions of Palestinians to be able to go to Israel and wipe out the character, the democratic character, the Jewish character of the state of Israel. That's not fair, that's not right".

Citing the words of Edward Said, a Palestinian intellectual and scholar, these fears of impurity impede in any long lasting peace: "This idea that somehow we should protect ourselves against the infiltrations, the infections of the other is, I think, the most dangerous idea at the end of the end 20th century and ... unless we find ways to do it [peace], and there are no shortcuts to it, there is going to be wholesale violence ..." Sure there can be some peace agreement at the level of success of the Oslo Accords of 1993, but that failed to resolve the conflict between the two and did little for having true peace in the region.

Here are questions for President Obama and his administration. How can you defend your veto of Palestinian membership in the U.N. Security Council with a call for insincere negotiations between the two parties when you lead another country to "shortcuts" for peace that result in countless innocent people murdered in Libya with the objective of protecting other civilians? How can you defend your veto with a call for negotiations when you call for another country's leader to step down as if your administration has the prerogative to do so, then become upset when China and Russia veto in the same council your call for meddling in the domestic affairs of that country?

The approach of President Obama to the Palestine Question just begs more questions. Mr. President, are you trying to impose peace in the region by means of force or war with smaller and weaker countries? If so, then for what? For Israel's security? Perhaps to have U.S. educated economists like Ali Tarhouni become oil ministers who can then easily give us Libyan oil for our comfort at home. Is this the peace which "... will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations" General Assembly, but rather through brute force of a small self-interested group?

The United States did not share with the overwhelming American sentiment and so isolated itself with the region. This isolation had its repercussions. Aside from Guatemala, Panama, Costa Rica and Mexico, most American countries supported Palestine's membership. Argentina's President Cristina de Kirchner said that to impede in Palestine's representation in the U.N. was to continue giving excuses for those who practice terrorism in an international level; that the absence of Palestinian representation would help create more instability. Bolivia's Evo Morales welcomed Palestine to the General Assembly with display of the Palestinian flag in solidarity. The support helped cause resentment of the U.S. veto power in the Security Council. The resentment was such that many countries were calling for a structural reform of the organization: Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay just to name a few. The support of Palestinian membership from many American countries isolated the U.S. so much that it became a factor for undermining the prestige and moral authority of the UN.