Questions: How can these conflicting ideas be reconciled? Is there any chance that Hamas would unite with Fatah? What would be Palestine’s next political move?
Sources:

Haaretz

al-Jazeera:

BBC

CNN

JPost

Turkey claims that these missiles are only to secure the country’s safety.  But this action has angered Syria; the country fears that rather than being defensive, these missiles are to help establish a no-fly zone in Syria.  The government has referred to this as a “provocation”, implying that perhaps, more violence will come from this than not.  Dawn also suggests that Turkey does not want to dig itself deeper into the Syria conflict, and was therefore wary about the deployment of the Patriot Missiles.

This does make sense.  Turkey supports the rebel groups in Syria, and have outwardly shown their dislike of the al-Assad regime.  And Syrian government has accused Turkey of harboring and training rebels in Ankara, the nation’s capital.  The Syrian rebels, no match for Syria’s military strength by air, would benefit from a no-fly zone immensely, as it might put an end to attacks from the Syrian government.

However, Turkey claims that these missiles are for the protection of Turkey, and nothing more.  Russia and Iran, both allied with the Syrian government, would certainly be against a no-fly zone, and Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov has already spoken out about how implementing a no-fly zone would almost definitely lead to armed conflict.

Al Jazeera also mentions the idea that the United States and other western and European countries would not support a no-fly zone across Syria because they are not currently willing to get involved in the conflict.  It is therefor interesting that NATO has provided these missiles.

Could these missiles escalate into the implementation of a no-fly zone over Syria?  What would this mean for the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces?  Will Russia and/or Iran continue to back the Syrian government, and how would they behave if a no-fly zone was implemented?  Where does Washington stand?

Sources: Dawn, PressTV, Al Jazeera

And yet…CNN reports on the Hilton heiress’ 5th store opening within the Kingdom in Mecca.

 On Tuesday, Turkey followed suit becoming the first Western power t o recognize the new opposition and even raised the possibility of openly arming the coalition. In its statement, Turkey said it “recognizes the Syrian National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Syria,” and called for the international community to join it in supporting the new coalition

On Wednesday, Barack Obama addressed a White House news conference. In regards to the new coalition he told reporters, “We consider them a legitimate representative of the aspirations of the Syrian people. We’re not yet prepared to recognize them as some sort of government in exile. But we do think that it is a broad-based representative group.” Obama has said that the U.S needed more time to see the true intentions of the group, but has not considered arming the opposition for fear of the weapons landing in the wrong hands.

 British Foreign Secretary William Hague has taken a similar approach as Obama. He said his country would decide in the upcoming days whether to officially recognize the group. In a statement he described their position as We would like to be able to be in a position to recognize them as the sole legitimate representatives of the Syrian people, but I do want to hear more about their plans … about who they are going to appoint, particular positions, about whether the Kurds will be included, how much support they have inside Syria.”

Questions:  Where do you think the U.S and U.K will fall in their support of the coalition? Do you think this  support will be enough to give the opposition coalition the edge they need? What would be the strongest next step for the Syrian National Coalition?

Washington Post:Obama                                 PressTV                                   Washington Post: GCC                                  Al-Jazeera

The Obama administration, girding itself for what could be the first major foreign policy test of its second term, has dangled an offer of bilateral talks in hopes of breaking through the nuclear impasse with Iran and easing the threat of a new Middle East war.

But despite positive comments in recent days from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior leaders, Iran has shown no hint that it plans to accept the offer, U.S. and European diplomats say.

Instead, intelligence analysts are detecting signs of continued progress at Iran’s uranium-enrichment plants and no significant softening on the part of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who will ultimately decide Iran’s nuclear course, according to the diplomats.

A European envoy, speaking on the condition of anonymity to nuclear diplomacy with Iran, saying “Things are moving a bit because they’re feeling pressure from sanctions. But we have no information suggesting that they’re willing to change.”

A report expected later this week from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is expected to show that Iran has nearly completed installing centrifuges at its Fordow uranium-enrichment plant, a facility being built inside a mountain tunnel to protect against military strikes, according to Western diplomats briefed on the IAEA’s preliminary findings.

Although not all the centrifuges are operating, the near-completion of the plant moves Iran a step closer to having a virtually bomb-proof sanctuary in which to increase its stockpile of enriched uranium, which can be used for civilian purposes or — if enriched further to fissile form — for nuclear weapons. Only the most powerful U.S. bunker-busting munitions are thought capable of destroying the facility. U.S. and Israeli officials worry that Iran could use the Fordow plant to make highly enriched uranium for nuclear bombs.

Israeli officials have signaled a willingness to delay a strike, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that his government will act unilaterally, if necessary, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear-weapons capability.

Questions:

If Netanyahu gave the go ahead on any type of action, what would the US and Iranian reactions be? Since the US has the only weapons powerful enough to break through to this underground area do you think that they would do this? If they did, how would it effect relations both with Iran as well as Israel?

Washington Post

The Prime Minister’s comments came on the eve of the US presidential election. His comments seem to display a parallel to Romney administration’s stance in the Israeli-Syrian conflict: more affirmative about taking military actions against Iran. Considering Netanyahu commented before the result for the Presidential election came out, one can suspect the outcome PM Netanyahu might have wished for in the election.

Previously, Netanyahu and his government failed to convince US to set a clear “red line” for military action against Iran. The red line is a mark set by Mr. Netanyahu, shown during an address to the UN General Assembly he made back in September, which denotes if Iran treads on the line Israel will have to strike against Iran. It’s an action seen to some – certainly not me – as an act that Netanyahu overplayed his hand. It certainly irritated their greatest ally: United States.

Mr. Netanyahu expressed, during the interview that Israel was prepared to act unilaterally. This has put a strain on relations with the administration of President Barack Obama.

The result of the US presidential election is out: Obama has one more term. It will be interesting to note the development or stagnation of President Obama and Netanyahu’s relationship, which will certainly affect Obama administration’s take on the conflicts in Middle East.

what impact does the Obama’s 2^nd term will have on America’s relationship with Israel? Obama administration will most likely try to prevent Israel from preemptively striking Iran, or they will try to not get dragged into a conflict; then what would be Israel’s reaction to US’s lack of involvement in the possible conflict.

Sources:

BBC  DAWN

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=imi_c2

Netanyahu voiced his support for republican candidate Mitt Romney earlier this fall, making many sources speculate that as a result Netanyahu may be put in some uncomfortable situations regarding the close relationship between Israel and the United States. Many people are questioning President Obama’s current opinion on PM Netanyahu. One source said, “But some observers believe Obama will seek ‘payback’ for Netanyahu’s perceived high-handedness, attempts to browbeat the US into a tougher line on Iran, refusal to restrain settlement growth in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and meddling in the US election process.”

The official response from Netanyahu after Obama was reelected as the United States President, regardless of his personal stance, was, of course, congratulatory. Netanyahu said, “I will continue working with President Obama to ensure Israel’s vital national security interests. The strategic union between Israel and the US is stronger than ever.” Netanyahu finished by saying, ““I think the United States of America again demonstrated why it’s the greatest democracy on earth. The security relationship between the United States and Israel is rock solid. I look forward to working with President Obama to further strengthen this relationship and I look forward to working with him to advance our goals of peace and security.”

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, issued a more nuanced statement, referring to differences between the allies, saying, “I have no doubt that the Obama administration will continue its policy whereby Israel’s security is at its very foundations as well as its efforts to tackle the challenges facing all of us in the region; all the while continuing to strive for further progress in the peace process. I believe that in the tradition of deep friendship and with a backdrop of shared experiences accrued with President Obama, it will also be possible to overcome any differences in stance; should they arise.”

There are a handful of things that will characterize the relationship between the US and Israel over the next year, two of which are predominantly more significant. The first is Iran and the second is the Israel-Palestine conflict. After President Obama refused to be forced into specifying the involvement of the United States if Israel were to attack Iran which led to PM Netanyahu stating in a speech to the UN in September that it was unlikely that Israel would launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations before next spring or summer.

Some say that Obama will choose to involve the United States in Israeli politics with the hope of helping the country progress towards a settlement of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu, whose inclination is to “manage the current situation in which millions of Palestinians live under occupation”, rather than advance towards a two-state settlement of the conflict, will attempt to resist pressure from Obama and the United States.

The hope is that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu will be able to move forward and accomplish goals while working together as one, strong, force. Both leaders want to make the best of their complex relationship and some US sources are guessing that this will lead to an official visit by Obama to Israel. Though Obama and Netanyahu currently have different stances regarding Iran’s nuclear power and the Israel-Palestine conflict, there is no question in the minds of international politicians that both Obama and Netanyahu will put their best foot forward and work to compromise on policies that allow for the countries to move forward, together.

Question: How would the relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu be different if Netanyahu had chosen not to publically announce his support for Romney? Is it realistic to think that Obama and Netanyahu will be able to work together and compromise on issues as large as Iran’s nuclear power and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

News Sources: Jerusalem Online, the Guardian, Jerusalem Post, and Business Insider

On the date of the attacks, several people saw members of Ansar al-Shariah in the area of the attacks, carrying rocket-propelled grenades.  Ansar al-Shariah is said to have close ties with al-Qaeda, which is one of the reasons the Libyan government is now blaming the attacks on terrorism.  The attacks were also carried out using heavy weaponry including RPGs.  President al-Magarief said that this is a clear sign that the attacks were executed by ”experienced masterminds”.

In another more controversial piece of evidence, Ansar al-Shariah claimed responsibility for the attacks on Facebook after they happened.  A day after this claim, they denied responsibility.  The United States, and particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken the position that a claim on Facebook calls for further investigation before the U.S. fully commits to a new position, but many are criticizing the U.S. Government and particularly President Obama, stating that he wrongly blamed the video for the attacks, not condemning the fact that it was caused by terrorism.

There is also much controversy because, according to CNN, the Obama Administration knew that the attacks could have been caused by terrorism very quickly after they were carried out, and still said nothing about that.  CNN and The Wall Street Journal both try to emphasize the idea that Obama made several speeches about condemning the video that insults Islam and Muhammad, but did not mention “terror”, only “violence”.  He has recently changed this stance by removing a part of his speech that claims that al-Qaeda is on the run.

It is interesting that the article from Aljazeera is more than a month old, but the articles from U.S. sources are much more recent; it just goes to show that the U.S. is a bit late in the game in sorting out what really happened in these attacks.

QUESTIONS:  How might this information alter the course of the upcoming U.S. elections?  Both of the U.S. articles seem biased against Obama; are they a true indicator of how America really feels about this issue?  Are Facebook and heavy weaponry sufficient evidence to blame this on terrorism?  Should this change the punishment of the creators of the hurtful anti-Muhammad video? (the man who made the video was arrested in California for violating his parole)

Sources: CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Aljazeera

Both The Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post suggested that the plotters were associated with al Qaeda, and The Wall Street Journal also noted that the arrestees had been aided in manufacturing the explosives by al Qaeda members in Iraq.

The group of 11 were also said to have brought weapons from Syria to aid their cause.  All 11 were Jordanian, and had been planning their attacks since June, intending to kill thousands.

Fox News describes the planned attacks as a follow up to hotel bombings in Amman several years ago, in which 60 people were killed by al Qaeda militants.  Al Qaeda took responsibility four the hotel attacks, claiming that they were to demonstrate al Qaeda’s lack of acceptance for Jordan’s alliance with the U.S.  The Jerusalem Post writes, “Jordan is a key US ally in the Middle East and Israel’s peace partner.”  It was important that they stopped these attacks from reaching their Western ally.

Questions:  What would have happened if these men had succeeded in their first attacks in Jordan?  Would the West have foreseen a continuation of the bombings in their own countries?  How was Jordan’s actions key in maintaining the peace in the region?

Sources: Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The Jerusalem Post