Jesse+Gore+inquiry


 * Part I: Historical Inquiry**




 * Part II: Paul Harvey //Rest of the Story// Version**




 * Part III: Video**

media type="custom" key="7558363"


 * Part IV: Inquiry Application Essay**




 * Part V: Reflection**



Aug. 31
 * Possible Topics:**

1. I have always been interested in learning more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I recently went to Israel and I personally saw some of the conflict that I have read about in the newspaper or seen stories about online. I truthfully do not know as much of the history about this topic as I wish I did. I taught Sunday school last year at my Temple and my curriculum focused on Israel. I started learning even more about the conflict when I was teaching the subject, but I still do not have a full timeline of events in my head. In my discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I want to talk about why the land is so important to both of these countries. With the recent invitation from Hilary Clinton to the leaders of Israel and Palestine for another round of peace talks in Washington, D.C., I am interested to see what happens and if anything close to peace can be created. I also think this topic would be interesting because with the impending peace talks, there will be current events that I can apply to my discussion. My last interest in this topic is to maybe explore why the United States thinks that it should police this, and other, situations. There has always been this "world police" attitude in the United States, and it would be interesting to apply this to this topic (however, this is a secondary thought with this topic).

2. The other topic that I am very interested in is African American Literature. I love the history behind this targeted group and I find the literature that I read from African Americans to be very powerful. I took an African American Literature course a few years ago and I really enjoyed reading stories and poems from our selected authors. While I am leaning towards the first topic, I think this one would allow me to read even more literature and understand the turmoil that African Americans had to go through before, during, and even after the Civil War. Authors like Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Gwendolyn Brooks, and Langston Hughes intrigue me.

Sept. 7
 * Israeli-Palestinian Conflict**

How is it possible, if it is even possible, for two nations to come to a peace agreement that will actually be beneficial for both Israel and Palestine?

How have the historical events that have split the land of Israel into two nations going to keep Israel and Palestine from reaching a peace agreement in Washington within a year?
 * Now that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have arrived in Washington, D.C. for another round of peace talks, how will the historical events that split the land of Israel into two nations going to hinder Israel and Palestine from reaching a peace agreement within a year?

political process of the peace talks, media or major political parties treat this issue, context would be the history portrayed in the press political takes on it instead of getting into the history of it

places where the peace talks have occurred effect of peace talks on where it is

Sept. 10 Possible inquiry questions for discussing the **Israeli-Palestinian conflict**:
 * Now that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have arrived in Washington, D.C. for another round of peace talks, how will the agendas of the political parties in the United States treat this issue?
 * How does the Democratic party proceed in developing peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas now that a new round of peace talks has begun in Washington, D.C.?
 * How does the United States media and political parties portray the peace negotations between Israel and Palestine now that the leaders of both nations have arrived in Washington, D.C. for another round of peace talks? (from Dr. Lee - I like this question the best. You should be able to do an interesting analysis of the current media coverage issue and political reactions to events. I would recommend that you begin immediately by tracking news stories in various press outlets. You could focus on web-based resources such as CNN (see http://topics.cnn.com/topics/diplomacy) and Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/mideast/index.html). You might also want to get a couple of specialty sources such as The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/middle-east/), and Foreign Affairs ([]).

[] []


 * August 20--press conference, Clinton (CNN)**
 * 1) Hilary Clinton invites Netanyahu and Abbas to meet in D.C. on Sept. 2 to relaunch direct negotations, believe that it can be completed within one year
 * 2) Egypt president and Jordan king invited by Obama
 * 3) bilateral meetings with the four leaders
 * 4) "important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it" -Clinton
 * 5) Clinton asks the parties to persevere in order to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region
 * 6) negotations characterized by good faith and a commitment to success
 * Sept. 10--Press conference, Obama (CNN)**
 * 1) People will want to undermind the attempts for peace talks, "rejectionists"
 * 2) mistrust between the sides is too deep
 * 3) Obama understands that it is a risk worth taking to help create these peace talks, it is in America's national security interest to arrive at peace
 * 4) Netanyahu comfortable because he knows that Obama says he his administration is unequivocal in our defense of Israel's security; unprecidented cooperation
 * Sept. 14--Enough adjectives, get on with talks, Jordan's Foreign Minister, Amman (CNN clip)**
 * 1) Wants the leaders to "get on with it"
 * 2) Not a question of what is new, but he wants peace in the Middle East
 * 3) "Committed in real hope"
 * 4) Wants people to live in peace in security
 * Sept. 15--Peace talks in Israel-Gaza (CNN clip and article)**
 * 1) People seem optomistic
 * 2) many issues still that need to be dealt with
 * 3) Clinton says this is the last chance for Middle East peace, trying to get this done now
 * 4) If there is no negotations, there will be no security for Israel and no state for the Palestinians
 * 5) will be going on over a daily basis either by phone or email

__Article Annotations__


 * "The president and the peace process" (Aug. 26) []
 * In this article from //The Economist//, the conservative group discusses Obama's thankless task. The overall message is that the article commends Obama for trying, but they still question his motives. "Every American president is implored upon entering office to bring the quarral [between Israel and Palestine] swiftly to an end." The article mentions that the Palestinian response to peace attempts is usually violence. This sounds like a foreshadowing prediction by //The Economist//. They feel that it is more realistic for America to "manage" the conflict in Palestine than to actually try to solve the problem. I have heard that it is rude to call a President "Mr," but Obama, and Bill Clinton, are consistently referred to as Mr. during the article (Bush is referred to as Mr. as well). The article is confusing at one point because it mentions that Bush took did not try to tackle this issue, but later it mentions that he set up meetings at the end of 2007 in Annapolis, which failed. The article mentions that this set of talks is expected to fail as well. One thing that shines Obama in a negative light is the fact that they mention that Obama has given a year for the peace talks because he may not not decided what his real course of action is yet. They end the article discussing the anger from "Israel's friends in Congress" when Obama humiliated Netanyahu (Israeli PM) at a White House meeting. They question if Obama started this campaign right before elections for the Democratic purposes and also they mentioned that "it may be just as well that this president got his peace prize up front" as they don't see anything coming out of these peace talks.
 * "Mideast peace talks seen as a beginning, not an end" (Aug. 30) []
 * In a very short article from CNN (liberal), Charley Keyes is very factual without many biases. He says that "In Israel, Netanyahu told Likud party members at a New Year's toast that any peace agreement with the Palestinians would be based on the acceptance of the Jewish people's right to a homeland, and effective security arrangements, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz."
 * "Bilateral Mideast Peace Talks" (Sept. 2) []
 * In a blog written by GOP chairman, Michael Steele, he gives a history of Americas solidarity with Israel. He sites examples from John Adams and Abe Lincoln. He writes that "for our part, Republicans stand today, as always, with Israel." He is concerned that Obama is harming America's long-standing relationship with Israel after the United States joined the U.N.'s "Human Rights Council" that the Bush administration had boycotted because it was led by Cuba. He writes about the importance of keeping an eye on Obama and his motives.
 * **"Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace" (Sept. 12) TIME Magazine**
 * **No annotation yet**
 * "Mideast peace talks a second chance for Hillary Clinton" (Sept. 13) []
 * In this CNN article, Jason Hanna discusses Hillary Clinton's resurrection and how these peace talks are a "second chance" for her. After she worked hard with her husband, President Clinton, Hillary wants to get the peace talks right this time. "Both my husband and I were very sad that we missed that opportunity," Clinton told a Palestinian journalist and an Israeli reporter this month. Hanna discusses that it would be huge for Clinton if she could shepherd an agreement between Israel and Palestine. In an interesting quote, Hanna writes that Clinton believed she was "the first person ever associated with an American administration who called for a Palestinian state as a way to realize the two-state solution." While Hanna doesn't directly say it, the inclusion of this sentence in a way discusses the importance of Hillary's career. Helping Israel and Palestine come to an agreement could help Clinton politically if she were to want to run for President again. He writes many positive statements about Clinton and how she is the person for the job.
 * In a differing opinion from the first annotation (with this being more liberal), the author writes that President Obama made the Mideast peace talks a "high priority immediately upon taking office," whereas other Presidents waited until they ran out of time. Obama administration also engaged other Arab leaders early.
 * "Israel's PM suggests compromise on settlements possible" (Sept. 13) []
 * In an article from CNN, a CNN Wire Staff writer highlights the pressure Netanyahu has to extend the 10-month moratorium on building in the West Bank and that the settlements issue has emerged as a major sticking point in peace negotations. "The Palestinians are demanding that after the 26th of September there will be zero growth in the West Bank, and that won't happen," Netanyahu said during a Sunday meeting with Tony Blair. Netanyahu spoke about the importance of trying to find a compromise in between what the two sides want. He said that while there won't be a freeze, it may not be necessary to construct all of the 20,000 housing units waiting to be built. "Just as we are asked to recognize the Palestinian national state...we also demand and expect the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state, the State of Israel, as the national state of the Jewish people. This is the true foundation of peace," Netanyahu said. This article is very factual, but does not have any quotes or direct responses from the Palestinians.
 * "The next tiny step" (Sept. 14) []
 * In this article from //The Economist//, there is a very pessimistic viewpoint about the future of the peace talks. This conservative view writes that the talks are "deliberately vague and intentionally uninformative prose." They say that all further talks are unplanned and that the future outlook of the peace talks will be centered around Israel's settlement building. This article discusses what is known as the "Clinton Parameters," which highlight the compromises Clinton tried to make during the peace talks held during his presidency. They did say, however, that Clinton held his peace talks during "the dying days of his presidency." In a direct quote from the article, the writers say "The sceptics and pessimists say the renewed talks are doomed because America, weaker now than ten years ago, hasn't come up with new ideas." I find that ironic because this article is very sceptical and pessimistic. They praise the "Clinton Parameters," but say that what is lacking this time around is that there is no political will to thrust the ideas down the throats of the two parties, and that there are no new ideas to bring to the table.
 * "Mideast leaders meet, Clinton says 'time is ripe'" (Sept. 14) []
 * In this article from the GOPUSA, Robert Burns writes about the settlements in the West Bank being a huge issue for the peace talks. It mentions that the Obama administration wants Israel to extend the moratorium, but that it will take efforts from both sides to find a way around the problem. In one line, Burns writes about how Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, told reports, "If the expectation is taht only Israel has to show flexibility then that is not a prescription for a successful process." This article is rather factual, with not much bias. It does end with a statement that said a poll wrote that 71% of a set of 501 Israelis said they doubted the latest round of talks would lead to an agreement.
 * "It's time the US talked to Hamas" (Sept. 14) []
 * This article discusses how these round of talks has a dynamic feel. Both sides act optimistic in public, but pessimistic at home. It discusses how the US tries to work with the Israelis to ask them to compromis, howver, they do not use the same logic with the Palestinians. It says how powerful Hamas has become and it says that the question is when violence will break, not if. Hamas is ky to success because there cannot be an agremnt or peace with Hamas. "Hamas is here to say, so bettr have it as part of the political process than as the worlds' outcast." The Americans should talk to Hamas in order to jump start the process.
 * "Glib talk about settlements harms peace efforts (Part II)" (Sept. 14) []
 * This is a pro-Palestinian article that gives a lot of heat to Israel and the United States. It mentions that some are saying Abbas is refusing to accept a comproimse with the moratorium situation. However, Netanyahu is not trying to help the situation because he isn't making a compromise to help the others. If the Israeli's extended the moratorium, it would make a huge move to show they want peace and it would boost their global standing greatly, especially since some believe Israel is being delegtimized intrnationally. It again mentions that Netanyahu doesn't want to anger the people of Israel. However, if he wants to be a good leader, he needs to learn that everyone will not like him.
 * "Peace talks continue amid uptick in Israel-Gaza violence" (Sept. 15) []
 * This article discusses rockets fired from Gaza and Israel's response. It says that the moratorium ends on September 26. This is the third I saw for the end of the moratorium (26, 28, 30). Why are these so innaccurate. This article is very factual and does not lean either way. If Obama and the United States want Israel to extend the moratorium, why is it not happening?
 * "Mideast peace talks round ends with no deal; Palestinians launch mortars, Israelis drop bombs" (Sept. 15) []
 * "It is politically incorrect to say so, but I believe there can be no genuine peace so long as Hamas remains a spoilr backed by Iran," Phillips said. Jordan and Egypt want to use their peace treaties with Israel to help with Israel and Palestine. The attack from Gaza to Israel is the highest total of mortars and rockets since 2009 of March.
 * "Top US envoy meets Arab nations, warns pressure on Israel endangers Mideast talks" (Sept. 15) []
 * Obama tells Arab ambassadors that they risk contributing to a failure of Mideast talks if they use an upcoming meeting in Vienna to pressure Israel ovr its nuclear program. Arab nations want to ask Israel to open its nuclear program to international perusal at a conference. Iran and Syria have not been cooperationg with the IAEA. Allies consider Iran the region's greatest proliferation threat. The Islamic nations, however, insist that Israel is the true danger in the Middle East, saying they fear its nuclear weapons capacity.
 * "Palestinians Should Just Say Yes" (Sept. 15) []
 * (Originally found on NY Times) This article discusses how Palestine should just accept whatever Israel is offerring in order for them to have their own state. If they truly want their own state, they need to make unwanted concessions. "They can opt for statehood on these terms--or no state at all." This is a good point since Israel is being just as stubborn as them. The Palestinian president and PM both lack popular support, but the article believes that their weakness could end up being their strength. The article criticizes Obama for putting all of his politically pressure on Israel, and none on Palestine. It ends by saying Palestine should try to get something done quickly, before it is too late.
 * "Mideast Talks Still Under Threat After Clinton Visit" (Sept. 16) []
 * This article by Reuters is discussing how each side is being very stubborn during these peace talks. The article does include an incorrect state, stating that the moratorium on Israeli settlements ends on September 30, when it actually ends on September 28. This article also frequently mentions that D.C.'s focus on an Israeli-Palestinian deal would not deflect it from pushing for an Israeli-Syrian accord. I think this article is being a little too harsh as it mentions Palestine's Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki saying that "if one settlement is built after the end of the freeze" Palestine would leave the negotations. However, al-Malki is not the person that is a part of the peace talks. This article was reprinted in the New York Times, which is more liberal.
 * "In the midst of peace talks, Palestinians are more divided than ever" (Sept. 16) []
 * This article discusses how the Palestinians are so divided over the possibility of signing a peace agreement with Israel. There is a Palestinian National Initiative and the head of it said that "people were pushed into the street and that's when the beatings began. It was very violent. The General Intelligence people were pushing people to the ground" during a meeting that was suppored to occur. "It means our president isn't in charge of his own government. It means the security services are running amuck, that our society is out of control--that our democracy is dead." The Ramallah incident is raising quetsions about the legitmacy of the current administration.
 * "Still talking, at least" (Sept. 16) []
 * The Americans would like a quick deal on borders which would, in Clinton's words, "eliminate the debate about settlements, because some areas would be inside Israel and some areas would not be inside Israel." The article mentions that a quick deal is not likely. It reviews the Clinton Paramters from Bill's administration. The Netanyahu administration believes that it should never concede the settlements. Because of his desire not to open a rift in his party, Netanyahu is trying to save face and not make compromises with the Palestinians.
 * "Israeli forces kill West Bank Hamas commander" (Sept. 17) []
 * This is a very short article written by the BBC News. It is very factual and it states both the Israel side and the Palestinian side of the killing of Iyad Shilbaya. It states both the Israeli reason and the Palestinian at the end of the article, without giving its opinion whether Israel or Palestine was right. However, at the beginning of the article it says that he was killed in a raid to arrest him, siding with the Israelis.
 * "Hamas: Occupants don't understand the language of resistance" (Sept. 17) [|http://iloubnan.info/politics/actualite/id/50364/titre/Hamas:-Occupants-don't-understand-the-language-of-resistance]
 * This is a two-lined snipet written by iloubnan.info. It is a statement released from Hamas. They state that "massacres targeting our people won't shake our determination and will to continue the resistance, liberate our territory, recover our rights and establish the Palestinian State which Capital will be Jerusalem." The article then says that Hamas wants to resist the Israelis, not compromise with them, as resistance would be the only way for them to gain freedom.
 * "Israeli troops kill Hamas militant in West Bank" (Sept. 17) []
 * This article is printed in the Washington Times (conservative) and it has all of the information as the article "Israeli forces kill West Bank Hamas commander." However, this article extends the earlier coverage and gives both more information about the subject and even more background information. Instead of leaving the statement that the two sides disagreed at the end of the article, it is written at the end. This article is a little more negative towards Israel always saying that Shilbaya was wanted for certain things, but then they didn't provide further details. Overall, however, the article is very factual.
 * "Israel FM proposes redrawing border" (Sept. 19) []
 * This article sheds positive light on Israel's foreign minister, with his statement that Israel should work on redrawing the border between Israel and Palestine. His proposal says that the borders would incorporate Jewish settlements, while placing Arab villages in Israel on the Palestinian side. He does state that negotations with the Palestinians should not be "land for peace" but an exchange of territories and populations. Exchanging land for peace has not worked in the past and so he wants a different outcome. The article ends by stating that The European Union has criticized Israel's settlement plans because they are illegal and they constitute an obstalce to peace and threaten to make a two state solution impossible.
 * "With crisis looming, Israeli Cabinet minister calls for Palestinian compromise on settlements" (Sept. 20) []
 * This article posted by FoxNews (conservative) discusses a very factual background of what has happened up to this point. It talks heavily about Dan Meridor, the deputy Prime Minister of Israel and how both sides need to give up something in the compromise. He says that if they say no compromise, "it's a bad sign." Both sides are being stubborn still and Meridor wants them to be flexible. He says that if Israel does resume building the settlements in the West Bank, they should remain in territory that will remain a part of Israel after a future deal. The article ends rather sourly, however, stating that "In a reflection of the potential for a showdown, right-wing lawmakers annouced they would be holding a celebration on Sunday in the West Bank settelemtn of Revava." This celebration will basically be the cutting of the ribbon ceremony starting the bebuilding of settlements. This party is the same party as the Israeli Prime Minister, so it would be interesting to see this outcome.
 * "The Tehran tangle in Middle East peace" (Sept. 20) []
 * This article has a rather liberal bias, supporting Obama saying that his Nobel prize shows that he can deliver positive results for Israel and Palestine. It also mentions new information that previous articles had not discussed about how "the Obama administration felt that progress on the peace process would set the stage for an effective regional coalition against Tehran." The two members of the Maryland faculty wrote this article discussing how they teach a class together (an Israeli and a Palestinian) and how they hope for a paradigm shift in their class (previously "the Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to live together...or are doomed to die together') through which an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could actually neutralize the Iranian nuclear peril. They hope that a compromise can be made and that when the Iranian president wants to give nuclear weapons to Palestine, Abbas will decline because "we have made peace with our neighbors and need to move on to a new constructive era." They also say that Israel should declare support of the 2002 Arab Peace Inititaive, which could secure diplomatic relations with the 22 members of the Arab League and the 57 Muslim countries involved.
 * "Hamas: We agreed in the past to state within '67 borders" (Sept. 20) []
 * In this article, the Jerusalem Post writes that the Hamas has sent a message to the US government stating that they request to begin dialogue with the US about the current peace talks. They mentioned that they didn't oppose the formation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital. They asked the US to relax its restrictions preventing reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.
 * "APN's Mapping Project" (Sept. 20) []
 * This is not really an article, but an introduction to an iPhone app that a real-time application that reflects breaking events and issues in the news, as well as showing the actual progress of settlements being created on the ground, if the moritorium ends as planned. APN's new app will be updated constantly to reflect changes, "such as new settlement plans and construction, the establishment or removal of outposts, or violent incidents perpetrated by Palestinians or by settlers. This is a Jewish website.
 * "Best option: dignified failure" (Sept. 20) []
 * This article was posted on The Middle East Channel of Foreign Policy. It was written by Sam Bahour, a Palestinian-American business consultant. This article is very pessimistic and biased towards Palestine. Bahour is very opinionated and writes that the occupation in the West Bank is just like apartheid. Israelis try to say that the lands are disupted and not military occupied. He says occupying these settlements and the land is an inhumane act against humanity. He also is not optomistic about a two-state solution because "Israeli[s] actions over the last six decades have nullified the two-state solution."
 * "'Israeli-Palestinian violence could resume if peace talks run aground'" (Sept. 21) []
 * This is an article that was written in the Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper. The article is very factual and does not sound pro-Israel. It mentions that Israel wants to keep its troops on the border of a future Palestinian state, which Palestinians reject. Netanyhau, the Israeli Prime Minister, fears Palestinian militants will attack Israel from within the new state if the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) are withdrawn from the West Bank-Jordan border. The Palestinian President, Abbas, says that having Israeli troops at this border would infringe upon Palestinian sovereignty. The ending is an urge from Israeli President, Shimon Peres for the Palestinians not to give up if the moratorium is ended. He says that Natanyahu cannot stop the impending building because of political reasons.
 * "Quartet to urge settlement freeze" (Sept. 21) []
 * This is a short, but factual article. It says that the Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators believe that the Israeli settlement moratorium has had a positive impact and that it should continue for the benefit of the peace talks. Netanyahu is reluctant to do that because it could affect his ruling coalitiion dominated by pro-settler parties. This is a very big political issue for Netanyahu because he does not want to lose support.
 * "Israeli's military chief warns of violence if peace talks with Palestinians break down" (Sept. 21) []
 * This is a FoxNews article that is very factual. It discusses the possibility of violence if peace talks falter again. However, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told lawmakers that because there is a low expectation for a peace deal to actually surface, the violence will not be as bad as it was after the 2000 peace summit at Camp David. This article also discusses that settlers demand that they be permitted to resume building in full force once the moratorium is up. Pro-settlement officials have vowed to help them. Settlers will protest if they can't build, which is why the Prime Minister does not want to lose these voters.
 * "Not Settling For Less" (Sept. 21) []
 * This article criticizes Obama for being "the most hostile president toward Israel that [Dayan] can remember." Daniel Dayan reiterates Obama's treatment of Netanyahu. A picture of him speaking with Netanyahu on the phone with his feet on the table and how he was treated rudely when at the White House. Because Obama was so cold towards Israel, it raised expectations very high on the Palestinian side that they believe it will create frustration when the expectations aren't filled. It also blasts Clinton and says that he turned the situation worse than when he started with them. The extension of the moratorium will bring about the collapse of the Netanyahu government.
 * "Time for the Palestinians to regroup" (Sept. 22) []
 * This article mentions that Abbas has made false promises before and that he will not give up on peace talks when the moratorium is extended. "I believe that Palestinians and Israelis are morally obligated to explore any opportunity for serious negotations, no matter how flawed the political conditions or balance may be at the moment." The Palestinians are not doing well and they need to get a clear focus and Abbas needs to lead it.
 * "Hamas Action to Catch Spies Spreads Panic in Gaza" (Sept. 22) []
 * Originally found in the NY Times, this article mentions hwo Hamas doesn't trust anyone and how "everybody in Gaza is under suspicion." The Gazans are keeping quiet who they have captured so Israel doesn't find out who they have under their control.
 * "Abbas signals renewed settlmnt construction won't end talks" (Sept. 22) []
 * Abbas has mentioned that he will not necessarily let the settlement construction end the peace talks (just as previous opinion article mentioned). Abbas is backing away from his ultimatium, but still mentioning that he wants Israel to extend the building restrictions for several months. Abbas said, "I would never deny [the] Jewish right ot the land of Israel." The US wants to make sure Abbas doesn't leave the talks.
 * "Obama zeroes in on Mideast peace in U.N. address" (Sept. 22) []
 * Very factual about some of the Obama statements at his U.N. address. "Last year, I pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors. We have travleed a winding road over the last 12 months, with few peaks and many valleys." Obama said friends of Israel "must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine--one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity." Obama wants to see the Palestinian state rise, but stop tearing Israel down.
 * "Israeli delegation a no-show at U.N. due to religious holiday" (Sept. 23) []
 * "There had been questions raised as to why the delegation was absent in light of President Barack Obama's focus in his address about the Middle East peace process. Some of Obama's policies are unpopular among Israelis, and there were questions as to whether the lack of presence was a snub." The delgation missed the peace talks because of Sukkot.
 * "Obama to warn Israel, Palestinians of alternatives to Mideast peace" (Sept. 23) []
 * Once again notes from the UN conference. Obama says, "If an agreemnt is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to co-existence." He also said, "And efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people--the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance, it is injustice. Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas--who stands up for his people in front of the world--is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children."
 * "Pressing for compromise, Clinton adds late-day meeting with Abbas" (Sept. 24) []
 * With the moratorium of settlements ending soon, Clinton is making last ditch efforts to secure some type of compromise. "The United States has been working to overcome the seeming impasse, angling for a way to prevent new construction in a way that would give Israelis a position that does not appear to be caving in, which would be untenable politically back in Israel." Netanyahu wanted concrete assurances that Abbas would not leave the peace talks if construction began. This was a very factual article.
 * "Israel warns IAEA against targeting it with Arab-led resolution" (Sept. 24) []
 * This is an article by Haaretz, which is always very factual. I am finding it the most factual and non-biased news source for these peace talks. It is also the Israeli newspaper, so that is reassuring that they are giving pure facts and no opinions. Israel warns the UN that an Arab-led push to target it with a resolution could deal a "fatal blow" to future cooperation on boosting Middle East security.
 * "Israel plays down scope of future settler projects" (Sept. 24) []
 * Originally found on Reuters Africa, this is an article that repeats many of the previous articles and worries from both sides. New information includes Netanyahu's office quoting him in a statement saying that continued settlement construction had not blocked previous rounds of Israeli-Palestinian negotations dating back to 1993 and that those talks also did not include a condition set by Netanyahu and rejected by the Palestinians that they recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state. It is slightly biased against Israel, including its title.
 * "Israelis, Palestinians search for way to resolve settlement crisis, salvage Mideast talks" (Sept. 24) []
 * The deadline for the moratorium ends on Sunday. The US is trying to coax Palestinians into negotations, but everyone is being quiet right now. There was a quote in the article from the official Palestinian news agency quoting Abbas as saying, "we have told everyone that we will not continue with direct negotations if the settlement freeze is not extended. This was our condition and our position, and we said it on every occasion." This is interesting since a different article said that Abbas had said he was reconsidering leaving.
 * "Down to the wire on settlements" (Sept. 24) []
 * This is one of the final articles written before the weekend that the settlements were set to expire. In this opinion article, Jessica Montell writes that "it is crucial that this freeze be extended if the fledgling peace process is to have any chance of success." She says that is it impossible to justify continuing peace talks if Israelis start building. She writes that 20 percent of settlements are built on privately-owned Palestinian land and that the Palestinians earn no income from the Dead Sea because of the restrictions. She calls the settlements a type of discrimination, hurting Palestine when it comes to justice, due process, protection from violence, planning and building codes, access to water, and more. "Settlements are also a violation of Israel's legal obligations and a daily thorn in the side of hundreds of people who want to build a house, etc." Montell is the Executive Director of B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
 * "Mideast Talks in Turmoil Over Israeli Settlement" (Sept. 27) []
 * As new construction began in the West Bank shortly after the moratorium freeze expired, many believed that Abbas would annouce the ending of the peace talks. However, Abbas has deferred a deicision on whether to quit the talks until at least next Monday. He wants to meet with the 22 member states of the Arab League at a special meeting on the issue. This idea came a day after Abbas said there was only one choice for Israel: "Either peace or settlements." Settler leaders said that construction activity would be minimal in the coming months for fear that the freeze will start again. This article is very factual.
 * "Construction restarts at West Bank settlement sites" (Sept. 27) []
 * "The new building casts a shadow over the continuation of face-to-face peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians that began this month." The fact that Abbas hasn't pulled out of talks yet is concerning the Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization, as Abbas was expected to give up.
 * "Bulldozers roll out across West Bank as settlement freeze ends" (Sept. 27) []
 * The number of housing units put up in the West Bank during the Netanyahu government is the lowest of any prime minister since the first Rabin government. This is interesting seeing as Netanyahu's party is a pro-settlement party. This article is very factual and it has no bias.
 * "Palestinian leader Abbas delays decision on peace talks" (Sept. 27) []
 * This article discusses how the BBC thinks that the Palestinians will resume the peace talks. Abbas is in a very difficult position and he may be forced to compromise. Construction is expected to be slow because of the holiday of Sukkot. Abbas wants to observe the upcoming construction and meet with members of the Arab league within the next week to determine his course of action. Biased saying that the Palestinians will conform.
 * "Israel defies building freeze calls" (Sept. 27) []
 * "But he appeared to step back from the brink on Sunday," says this article about Abbas. It then states that the settlers are going to get back to business as usual but will respect the prime minister's request to build slowly and not unnecessarily. It ends by saying the previous peace talks collapsed when Israel launched a war on the Gaza Strip in 2008, which I found unnecessarily to include in the way they mentioned it.

Draft