The Oslo Accords had no reference at all to international law. The fact is International Law is not on the side of Israel and the US knows this. The Palestinians are the party constantly referring to International Law, as that is the basis for most of their negotiating position - hence their moves to join the UN to bolster it. As the main ally of Israel, the U.S. generally remains silent. Obama is the first U.S. president to declare the settlements illegal and even he refused to back a UN resolution condemning the settlements that essentially mirrored his own policy toward the settlements. Yes, you are right, a resolution to the conflict is a national security interest of the U.S. and the world. However, "reality" appears much different to the Obama administration today than it did at the start of Obama's presidency. With all the changes in the Middle East (Arab Spring, Iran's nuclear progress, etc) and Asia (China's growing assertiveness, etc), not to mention Obama's personal preference to tackle domestic issues rather than foreign policy, Israel-Palestine is probably not nearly as high on Obama's priority list as it was at the start of his presidency. As much as I would like to believe Obama will invest the great energy needed to push for a resolution of the conflict, unless he sees a true opening I don't think he will. A true opening might be along the lines of a centrist or left-leaning coalition being formed in Israel after the elections and/or the neutralization of the Iranian threat (whether via negotiation or militarily). Both of those scenarios seem unlikely.
Report: Saudis imposes sanctions on 12 senior Hezbollah figures for involvement in terrorism (Reuters)
The bombing of the Russian airliner reflects the long conflict between Islamic extremists and Egypt that has spread south to the coastal fantasy land.21:26 25.11.15 | 1 comments