Give Back the Nobel Prize, Obama!
Published in La Vie Eco
(Morocco) on 7 November 2011
by Fadel Agoumi (link to original)
(Morocco) on 7 November 2011
by Fadel Agoumi (link to original)
Translated from
by Leah Brennan.
Edited by Mark DeLucas
.
Since the U.S. elections are held every four years, it is absurd for this country to continue to be at the center of the mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, acting as both judge and jury, moralist and violator of moral principles.
Is this a surprise? Unfortunately not. On Oct. 31, the United States, the country most able to assist in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, voted against the accession of Palestine as the 195th member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This step was more symbolic than formal for this country struggling to recover their land and statehood, already formally recognized by the United Nations system since the passage of Resolution 181 in 1947. Palestine has become a member of UNESCO, which allows it to recognize its cultural sovereignty over its territories and history. Now UNESCO has been denied 22 percent of its annual revenue, as the United States has decided to suspend its contributions. And the United States has seen its attempts to approach the Arab world, affirmed by their president's speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, crumble.
On June 4, 2009, Barack Obama spoke of a "fresh start." On Sept. 24, 2010, before the U.N. General Assembly, he promised to put his weight behind direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians — to put an end to the conflict, calling for a peace treaty and meetings with the world community, to take place one year later, in pursuit of "an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel." On May 19, 2011, in a speech on the Arab Spring, he went further by mentioning two states on the basis of shared lines formed in June of 1967. In Sept. 2011, at the same meeting of the U.N., he trampled, shamelessly, on two years of promises.
In reality, the new start was not that of Cairo. The new start is provided by the timing of the U.S. elections to be held in 2012, in which the vote of the Jewish community figures heavily. The result was a predictable veto on Nov. 11 of the official recognition of a Palestinian state. Palestine does not exist until Israel decides otherwise. …
In these conditions, and since U.S. [presidential] elections are held every four years, it would be absurd for this country to continue to be the center of mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, acting as judge and jury, teacher and violator of lessons in morality.
On Oct. 9, 2009, Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded for good intentions rather than accomplishments. The decent thing would have been for this man, who received an undue honor, to have waived the privilege that wise men like Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres had, in time, really deserved.
Is this a surprise? Unfortunately not. On Oct. 31, the United States, the country most able to assist in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, voted against the accession of Palestine as the 195th member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This step was more symbolic than formal for this country struggling to recover their land and statehood, already formally recognized by the United Nations system since the passage of Resolution 181 in 1947. Palestine has become a member of UNESCO, which allows it to recognize its cultural sovereignty over its territories and history. Now UNESCO has been denied 22 percent of its annual revenue, as the United States has decided to suspend its contributions. And the United States has seen its attempts to approach the Arab world, affirmed by their president's speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, crumble.
On June 4, 2009, Barack Obama spoke of a "fresh start." On Sept. 24, 2010, before the U.N. General Assembly, he promised to put his weight behind direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians — to put an end to the conflict, calling for a peace treaty and meetings with the world community, to take place one year later, in pursuit of "an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel." On May 19, 2011, in a speech on the Arab Spring, he went further by mentioning two states on the basis of shared lines formed in June of 1967. In Sept. 2011, at the same meeting of the U.N., he trampled, shamelessly, on two years of promises.
In reality, the new start was not that of Cairo. The new start is provided by the timing of the U.S. elections to be held in 2012, in which the vote of the Jewish community figures heavily. The result was a predictable veto on Nov. 11 of the official recognition of a Palestinian state. Palestine does not exist until Israel decides otherwise. …
In these conditions, and since U.S. [presidential] elections are held every four years, it would be absurd for this country to continue to be the center of mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, acting as judge and jury, teacher and violator of lessons in morality.
On Oct. 9, 2009, Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded for good intentions rather than accomplishments. The decent thing would have been for this man, who received an undue honor, to have waived the privilege that wise men like Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres had, in time, really deserved.
Previous article![]( "The Republicans: Perpetually Lacking an Alternative")
