Obama Policies, Methodologies And Motives Stink BUT NGO’s Do Not!
The first Positive Sign I have Seen among Fatah youth in 35 Years,
Fatah sending its children to an NGO organized Ramallah Event,
But Ham as
sends its Children to hate Jews & America Schools,
World is finally heading for a false peace in the Middle East!
The unusual sighting in Ramallah which I loudly Applaud!
A Weak Flicker of False Peace comes from West Bank!
August 26, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
HOPE FOR THE FUTURE CAN GO A LONG WAY WITH HOPELESS KIDS
Although I am not a supporter of Barack Obama, disagreeing with his policies, his methodology, and motives, I believe his election to the office of President in America has given the Palestinian youth in the West Bank reason to believe there is hope in the future for prosperity rather than martyrdom. While there is no such thing as a perfect organization, I do applaud the work that NGO’s have done, and are doing. I believe the work they are doing, described in the Jerusalem Post excerpt following our heading, will be a contributing factor in the creation of a Hudna in Israel twixt Israel and the main terrorist groups in, and around her. I believe all the events in the Middle East are working together for good. It will not be pleasant to see the war come that will terminate in the final battle of Armageddon some three and one half years after Israel is driven into the Negev, nor will the many horrific meteorological, geological, biological, and starvation events be enjoyable, but it will all seen to have been good when Jesus comes at his Second Advent.
Romans 8:28 – And we know that all things work together for good TO THEM THAT LOVE GOD, to them who are the called according to HIS purpose.
I Corinthiuans 1:27-31 – But God hath chosen the FOOLISH things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence. [30] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [31]That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
To the intellectual this sort of reasoning makes no sense whatsoever, and those who believe it are looked upon as fools, but the world wise cannot love his appearing because they do not know him. And even some of those who say they know him still look to their own human acts of baptism and works as additional requirements of their salvation.
I Corinthians 1:17,18 – For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. [18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
II Timothy 4:6-8 – For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. [7] I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also THAT LOVE HIS APPEARING.
Description Information on “NGO” from Wikipedia
Non-governmental organization (NGO) is a term that has become widely accepted as referring to a legally constituted, non-governmental organization created by natural or legal persons with
no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status excluding government representatives as members in the organization. Unlike the term intergovernmental organization, “non-governmental organization” is a term in general use but is not a legal definition. In many jurisdictions these types of organization are defined as “civil society organizations” or referred to by other names.
The number of internationally operating NGOs is estimated at 40,000. National numbers are even higher: Russia has 277,000 NGOs. India is estimated to have between 1 million and 2 million NGOs.
International non-governmental organizations have a history dating back to at least 1839.
Rotary, later Rotary International, was founded in 1904. It has been estimated that by 1914 there were 1083 NGOs. International NGOs were important in the anti-slavery movement and the movement for women’s suffrage, and reached a peak at the time of the World Disarmament Conference. However, the phrase “non-governmental organization” only came into popular use with the establishment of the United Nations Organization in 1945 with provisions in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter[7] for a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member states—see Consultative Status. The definition of “international NGO” (INGO) is first given in resolution 288 (X) of ECOSOC on February 27, 1950: it is defined as “any international organization that is not founded by an international treaty”. The vital role of NGOs and other “major groups” in sustainable development was recognized in Chapter 27 of Agenda 21, leading to intense arrangements for a consultative relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.
Rapid development of the non-governmental sector occurred in western countries as a result of the processes of restructurization of the welfare state. Further globalisation of that process occurred after the fall of the communist system and was an important part of the Washington consensus.
Globalization during the 20th century gave rise to the importance of NGOs. Many problems could not be solved within a nation. International treaties and international organizations such as the World Trade Organization were perceived as being too centred on the interests of capitalist enterprises. Some argued that in an attempt to counterbalance this trend, NGOs have developed to emphasize humanitarian issues, developmental aid and sustainable development. A prominent example of this is the World Social Forum which is a rival convention to the World Economic Forum held annually in January in Davos, Switzerland. The fifth World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January 2005 was attended by representatives from more than 1,000 NGOs. Some have argued that in forums like these, NGOs take the place of what should belong to popular movements of the poor. Others argue that NGOs are often imperialist in nature, that they sometimes operate in a racialized manner in dominant countries, and that they fulfill a similar function to that of the clergy during the high colonial era. The philosopher Peter Hallward argues that they are an aristocratic form of politics. However, this philosophy would suggest that organizations of indigenous peoples are not represented, which is untrue.
Whatever the case, NGO transnational networking is now extensive.
Begin Excerpt 1 from Jerusalem Post
August 24, 2009
Daoud Kuttab , THE JERUSALEM POST
I had to rub my eyes a few times to be sure that what I was seeing was real. The setting: downtown Ramallah. The event: International Youth Day. The participants were wearing white T-shirts with logos on the front and back and dark red hats.
Palestinians from all over the West Bank were participating in the event organized by a network of youth NGOs called “We are Palestine.” The theme this year was “We will be as much as we can dream.”
The day’s activities began with a carnival, starting from the well-known Manara Square, passing through the streets of Ramallah and ending at the Orthodox Club.
Discussions throughout the day included talks about drugs and unemployment, a basketball game for disabled youths and various concerts. In addition to the troupe Bailasan and Tagareed, the evening ended with two rap concerts, by a group called G-town and with Blood in Street providing the finale.
WHAT SURPRISED me was not the event or the enthusiasm or the number of the youths participating in it. After all Palestinians under 25 constitute the majority of the population in the West Bank.
My big surprise was to see the public sponsor of the event. The red white and blue logo of USAID with the words “From the American people” appeared everywhere including on the back of participants’ T-shirts.
The fact that USAID was sponsoring a youth event might not be totally strange in itself. But to have the American logo brandished all over the streets of Ramallah, on outdoor signs and on the back of a moving sea of people was really a sight to see.
IT WAS only a few years ago that young people, possibly many of the same ones celebrating International Youth Day this week, were demonstrating in the same Manara Square in Ramallah against Israel and the US. Anti-American slogans used to be the norm at almost all Palestinian youth-led demonstrations.
So what’s changed? Have Palestinians become less politicized or has anti-American sentiment mellowed?
I decided to conduct my own unscientific poll among the hundreds of youths gathered in Ramallah. for this year’s International Youth Day.
My question was simple: Has it become acceptable among Palestinians to wear a hat or a T-shirt praising Americans?
The answer most respondents had can be summarized in two words: Barack Obama. The newly-elected president has done more to change America’s image among Palestinians than any policy declaration or political activity.
People were careful to note that they are not blindly supporting the US all of a sudden. Nor did they believe that everything the new American president said would be carried out. But it was clear that the presence of a son of an African immigrant in the White House has had its effects on the psyche of Palestinian youths.
Other reasons were stated. Young Palestinians have had it with the constant and intensified political rhetoric. While no one I spoke to was any less nationalistic, many said they were not willing to wait forever for political change and that there is more to life than following the never-ending political discourse.
While some expressed disillusionment with many in the Palestinian leadership, others had words of praise for the current Palestinian prime minister, and still others expressed hope for the newly-elected Fatah leadership.
It is not clear whether my observations reflect a change in the thinking of Palestinian youth or whether it is an isolated incident, but I don’t remember a day in the last 20 years (or more) that I could see American symbols being worn without those wearing them or people around them batting an eyelid.
The writer is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University.
He is general manager of Community Media Network Radio Al Balad.
End Excerpt 1 from Jerusalem Post
In spite of Obama’s naïve policies, methods, and motives, the fact that his father was Islamic, he attended an Islamic School very early in life, and has the full fledged name of Barack Hussein Obama, is the thing that endears him to West Bank Fatah youth, and is the one thing about him that can influence Islam, and lead to a period of calm before the last great storm of the Age of the Gentiles.
Begin Excerpt 2 from Jerusalem Post
Candidly speaking: There may be worse to come
August 25, 2009
Isi Leibler , THE JERUSALEM POST
President Obama’s naïve efforts to appease the Arabs by bullying and distancing the United States from Israel has backfired. However despite increasing unease extending to some of Obama’s most fervent supporters, the administration has yet to signal any change in policy.
The futility of trying to appease tyrannies is evident everywhere; the thuggish behavior of the Iranian regime toward its own people makes a farce of Obama’s efforts to reason with Ahmadinejad; in response to unilateral US overtures to the Syrians, President Assad visited the Iranian president, congratulated him on his bogus reelection and declared that their alliance had never been stronger; the North Koreans displayed utter contempt for Obama’s friendly outreach; Arabs states all responded negatively to Obama’s entreaties to provide a few crumbs of recognition in return for Israeli concessions; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly humiliated by the Saudi Foreign Minister, who insisted there was nothing to negotiate unless Israel accepted all Arab demands.
The Palestinian response was even more noxious. Clearly emboldened, the Fatah General Assembly displayed contempt for any initiative that could further the peace process. Their intransigence again demonstrated the absurdity of the notion that this corrupt and duplicitous leadership could be a genuine peace partner. There were even elements of surrealism when the Fatah Assembly unanimously accused Israel of having assassinated Arafat and provided standing applause for a mass murderer.
They decreed that unless Israel acceded to all their demands, no further negotiations would take place and they could renew the “armed struggle.” Far from encouraging Arab moderation, Obama’s tough approach to Israel simply bolstered the hardliners.
The facts on the ground today make prospects for peace more remote than ever.
The only clear message emerging from the Fatah Congress is that, as with Hamas, elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region remains its ultimate objective. Were that not so, Mahmoud Abbas would have accepted Ehud Olmert’s offer, which virtually granted him all his territorial demands and even hinted at a compromise over the Arab right of return.
Obama’s advisers must have been bitterly disappointed when their diktats against Israel backfired.
Indeed, their one-sided demands and bullying tactics can take credit for having created a rare consensus among the Israeli public, which today overwhelmingly supports Netanyahu.
To add to Obama’s problems and despite predictions to the contrary, American Jewish leaders have begun to openly challenge some of his policies. There is a growing unease even among some Jewish Democrats that Obama is betraying the unequivocal undertakings he made during the elections to faithfully preserve the alliance with Israel.
This was exemplified in remarks made by Howard Berman, the influential Democratic chair of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, who in a closed meeting with Jewish leaders explicitly criticized the Obama administration’s pressure on Israel over settlements. Berman said Abbas was now “waiting for the US to present him Israel on a platter”. Stanley Hoyer, the Democratic House majority leader visiting Israel, made similar comments at a Jerusalem news conference.
OBAMA MUST also have been stunned when his friend and loyal supporter Alan Solow, the Chairman of the Presidents Conference representing 52 major American Jewish organizations, condemned
his demands to limit Jews settlements in Jerusalem and its suburbs.
In a full page New York Times advert Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League stated “The problem is not settlements, it’s Arab rejection…Mr. President, it’s time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally”. David Harris of the American Jewish Committee expressed similar feelings to a Congressional group. Whilst usually ritually reiterating their belief that Obama would not abandon Israel, Jewish leaders have begun openly criticizing the administration’s behavior toward the Jewish state.
Obama’s standing with American Jewish activists plummeted further when, contemptuously dismissing a rare virtually unanimous Jewish protest, he personally participated in the ceremony honoring former Irish president and 2001 UN Durban hate-fest convener Mary Robinson with the highest human rights award in the US. This was perceived as yet another manifestation of Obama’s new love affair with the UN and its anti-Israel affiliates.
It must also have been disappointing for Obama’s Jewish advisers promoting the J Street line when they became aware that despite expensive media promotions, opinion polls indicated that most Jewish activists remained contemptuous of the left-wing Jewish fringe groups urging Obama to force Israel to make further concessions.
However, as of now, while continuing to avoid any initiative which could irritate the Arabs, the US is maintaining its heavy-handed approach toward its erstwhile ally, Israel. While a face-saving compromise may soon eventuate, appreciating the unprecedented backing he currently enjoys from his constituency, Netanyahu would be unwise to capitulate to Obama’s demands.
Alas, irrespective of the settlement issues, there may be worse to come from this administration.
After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s recent warm meeting with Obama in Washington, he effusively praised the policy changes introduced by the president and hinted of further impending “positive” US initiatives.
There are also chilling predictions that without prior consultations with Israel, Obama intends to unilaterally submit a US plan for a comprehensive settlement at the UN or elsewhere. It is rumored that this plan would use as a starting point the irresponsible offers made to Abbas by Olmert during the death throes of his tenure – offers which would unquestionably have been repudiated by the Knesset and people of Israel in a referendum. Such a move would be an unprecedented betrayal of a long-standing ally.
UNTIL SUCH time as a genuine Palestinian peace partner emerges, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cannot be expected to create a miraculous magic plan which would bring about a comprehensive final settlement. But his task now must be to preempt a disastrous imposed settlement by the Americans.
In doing so he must he speedily identify the red lines which his government, backed by the vast majority of Israelis, would never contemplate crossing.
To this end he should also martial the support of the mainstream American Jewish leadership and encourage them to convey to their president that they too have red lines. They have already begun to signal that they will not remain passive if their government attempts to unilaterally impose a solution which could endanger the Jewish state.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.