October 22, 2009
Robert O. Freedman describes President Obama’s policy and objectives in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unlike his predecessor Bush, who avoided heavy involvement in this area, Obama makes it clear that he will have a different approach. His objectives are a two-state solution and the halt of Israeli settlement building. Obama’s approach to foreign affairs relies on engagement, not confrontation. Thus, he wants Israel to meet him in the middle; this is facilitated through “confidence-building measures,” such as neighboring countries agreeing to allow Israeli planes to fly through their air space. Challenges have arisen for Obama’s plan with the February 2009 elections in Israel, which reflect the right-wing alignment of the populace. The Arab nations disagree with Obama and believe that temporary confidence-building measures are no path to peace. Obama is also dealing with domestic health care issues, the National deficit, and Afghanistan, which has taken away some of his attention from Israel. Since September of this year, the American stance has shifted – the U.S. negotiated a temporary settlement freeze with Netanyahu, instead of a full stop. Attempts to curb nuclear enrichment in Iran, partly to prevent an Israeli attack, have been less than successful. The President may decide to focus on health care and Afghanistan in absence of significant progress in negotiations with Israel.
https://bcfausa.org/video/obamas-changing-policy-towards-the-arab-israeli-conflict/
Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!
At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.
The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.
Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.
It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.
