Our guest blogger is Joseph Dana, a writer and filmmaker living in Jerusalem.

Silwan is a dangerous neighborhood. Not only because of the simmering political tensions between the Palestinians and the Jewish settlers occupying houses in the city, but also because the neighborhood is one of the centers of the drug trade. But of all the cities and villages in the West Bank, the Palestinians of Silwan have a reputation as being on the forefront of resistance to Israel’s steady takeover of Palestinian land. In fact, they often proclaim that the third intifada will begin in Silwan regardless of what is happening in the rest of the West Bank.

Recently, a thirty five year father of three living in Silwan was shot by a private settler security guard. Days of rioting and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli border police followed. I was in Silwan during these riots and at times it felt as though the third intifada was already underway.

Silwan is located in East Jerusalem’s holy basin, which encompasses the north, east and south of the Old City. Over the past five years, the Israeli government has been encouraging Jewish settlers to settle in the holy basin in order to disconnect East Jerusalem from the rest of Palestine, effectively making an equitable two state solution impossible. From Sheikh Jarrah in the north to Silwan in the south, settlers have been taking over and changing the ethnic make up of what would, according to the 2003 Road Map, become the Palestinian capital.

The method of Israeli acquisition of Palestinian land and property in East Jerusalem varies. In Sheikh Jarrah, Israeli courts have sided with settler organizations attempting to prove that certain houses in the neighborhood were owned by Jewish families before 1948 and thus should be returned to Jewish families today. This, of course, raises the questions about homes belonging to Palestinian families in 1948 in places like Jaffa, Lod, and West Jerusalem. But that question has been left unanswered. Due to the historical depth of Silwan, settler organizations lead by a group named ELAD, which is listed as a 501 c3 charity in the United States, have invested millions of dollars to create archaeological parks which attempt to strengthen the Jewish claim to the land through archaeology. Read more

At a candidate forum last week, Georgia state Rep. John Yates (R) was asked for his recommendations on what to do about illegal immigration in Florida. Yates replied that troops on the border should be given “shoot to kill” orders and that flyers should be dropped in Mexico warning of the new immigration policy. “They ought to be armed and if warned leaflets dropped all over Mexico says that we will shoot to kill if anybody crosses and be serious about this and if they do that then there won’t be anybody killed [sic],” reasoned Yates.

In an interview with Atlanta’s Fox5, Yates stood by his comments:

Some have questioned Yates’ comments. When asked if he could see why people would be upset with his comments Yates, “No, I don’t think they’d be upset with what I’d say.”

Rep. Yates, a WWII veteran in office more than 20 years, represents parts of Douglas, Fayette and Spalding Counties.

“If they come over here, on these raids killing ranchers and everything, you got to stop them some way,” said Yates.

Yates likened illegal immigrants to enemies of the country.

“Stopping Hitler was worth the price,” Yates said. “It’s our border, they’re invading us.”

Watch Fox5′s report:

Jerry Gonzalez of Georgia’s Association of Latino Elected Officials’s has already voiced his concerns: “We’re concerned that this type of rhetoric, if it blows up is going to incite violence against our community.”

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) echoed Gonzalez’s statement. “We are seeing a frightening ratcheting up of hate speech about undocumented workers from Mexico, and John Yates has taken the rhetoric to a level of extremism that is shocking and deeply disturbing,” said Bill Nigut, the ADL’s southeast regional director. “Comparing Mexicans crossing the border illegally to Hitler’s army is grossly offensive to Jews and others who suffered the tragic consequences of the Nazi’s so-called ‘Final Solution.’”

Immigration has become a hot button issue in Georgia, particularly in the past few months. The issue is at the front and center of the state’s gubernatorial race, along with many other local elections. The state recently banned undocumented immigrants from attending most of the state’s most prestigious public universities and colleges. Georgia Republicans are already drafting an immigration law similar to the one recently passed by Arizona. Georgia is home to an estimated 480,000 undocumented immigrants.

Our guest blogger is Laura Heaton, a Writer-Editor at the Enough Project.

“It doesn’t matter what I believe” about the likelihood genocide will take place in South Sudan, said George Clooney on the Today show last week. “Obviously, I’m an actor.” Clooney continued, “The Secretary of State said it’s a ‘ticking time bomb.’ The CIA said this is the next genocide if we’re not careful. The president has said as much. Everyone acknowledges that this is what will take place if someone doesn’t moderate, doesn’t mediate.”

Clooney seems to be keen to tell U.S. officials what they say they know but have, until recently, done surprisingly little to address. Clooney’s visit last week to southern Sudan alongside my boss, the Enough Project’s John Prendergast, has helped generate more attention to Sudan this week than, arguably, the U.S. has paid to the war-torn country since the gravest days of the Darfur conflict. “If you had had the opportunity three months ahead of time to prevent Darfur’s genocide, what would you have done?” they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed yesterday.

Next January — less than 90 days from now — the people of southern Sudan will vote in a referendum on whether to stay unified with the North or break away and form Africa’s newest country. It’s a choice that the ruling parties in the North and South agreed to in 2005 when they signed a peace deal that ended two decades of civil war in which 2 million people died. Southerners are expected to overwhelmingly vote for independence, taking with them large swaths of Sudan’s oil-rich territory. With so much at stake, many worry that war is brewing and will be set off by the momentous vote, or by obstacles that prevent it from taking place on time or at all.

Days before Clooney landed in the southern capital of Juba, President Obama made his most public commitment to Sudan since moving into the White House. At a gathering at the U.N. General Assembly, Obama delivered a 15-minute speech about Sudan, in which he promised to work closely with North and South to fully implement the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, hold spoilers accountable, whether they disrupt peace talks in Darfur or mettle with the southern referendum, and help develop the South so that it can provide for its citizens. He also noted the importance for the northern ruling party to follow through on its recent pledges to address security concerns and humanitarian access in Darfur.

Clooney’s advocacy blitz this week, which included meetings with Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Senators Lugar and Kerry, and over a dozen media appearances, is helping build the public support to hold Obama to those promises. Over 25,000 people have already sent letters to the president via SudanActionNow.org calling on him to “do everything you can” to prevent a return to war in Sudan. And the numbers are growing quickly.

During his speech at the United Nations, President Obama touted the increased U.S. diplomatic presence in the South, which has, slowly, been rolled out over the past several months. The U.S. government doubled its diplomatic presence in southern Sudan and now has the largest contingent there of any single country. Most notably, among the ranks is former Ambassador Princeton Lyman, whose long legacy in Africa earned him a role as a lead U.S. negotiator tasked with addressing the laundry list of contentious outstanding issues between the two sides. Deadlock over one particularly contentious area — Abyei, located on the North-South border — illustrates how challenging it will be to find common ground between northern and southern parties even with an infusion of U.S. attention and funds.

Almost a year to the day after the Obama administration unveiled its long-awaited Sudan policy — one that promised to adjust pressures and incentives toward the ruling parties of Sudan according to demonstrated progress or backsliding — it appears President Obama and his top officials are beginning to roll it out. Obama’s remarks at the U.N. were full of the “tough love” messaging that is a hallmark of his administration. He was unequivocal about where the responsibility for a smooth referendum lies:

We are here because the leaders of Sudan face a choice. It’s not the choice of how to move forward to give the people of Sudan the peace they deserve. We already know what needs to be done. The choice is for Sudanese leaders — whether they will have the courage to walk the path. And the decision cannot be delayed any longer.

The president’s personal involvement is encouraging. The hour is late, but there’s still time. The urgency that has seized his administration must be sustained to ensure that the will of the southern Sudanese people is respected and that Africa’s newest country — if that’s what the people choose — can emerge without provoking more war.