"Not to go to the UN would be suicidal for the Palestinian Authority. All these people [in Gaza] took the brunt of the attack and now we should chicken out because they [the US and Israel] will cut off some money? What we’re doing is not violent; it’s not military; it’s not illegal. The world should see that if they keep maintaining the status quo, it will get you nothing but more bloodshed. That’s the lesson from Gaza."

Senior Palestinian official Nabil Shaath - Assuring the Guardian’s Chris McGreal that Palestinians resolve to seek recognition of statehood from the United Nations would be broken by monetary threats. Several countries, most notably the US and UK, have been pressuring the Palestinian Authority to make various concessions ahead of its next attempt to gain international recognition on November 29. Much of the concern allegedly stems from the Israeli’s government’s fear that it will be dragged before the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges related to the Gaza offensive that took place four years ago. source (via shortformblog)

(via shortformblog)

"Why are we funding the U.N.?"

Rick Perry

Hmmm…. Maybe because it fosters international cooperation in the hopes of avoiding costly and deadly conflicts?

Obama Says No to Palestinian State… Well, for right now anyway.

Today, President Obama spoke at the United Nations in New York, and part of his speech touched on the issue of Palestine seeking formal statehood. Even after endorsing a Palestinian state just a year ago, he now thinks that it would amount to a “shortcut to peace”. That’s right, apparently seeking international recognition through a democratic process is now a “shortcut”.

Now you might be thinking, “Wow, a shortcut to peace? That sounds awesome! Let’s do that thing!” Nope. Did I mention that, according to Obama, there can’t be a shortcut to peace. So here’s the logic so far:

1. A Palestinian state is a shortcut to peace.
2. Shortcuts to peace don’t work.
3. A Palestinian state won’t work.*

*Without further negotiations and a Palestinian guarantee of the security of Israel.

That asterisk is important, seeing as it would completely alienate the liberal base if Obama were to come out wholly against a Palestinian state, especially after previously expressing his support for it. While I think that a guarantee that Palestine won’t support any attacks against Israel is perfectly reasonable, I do not think that the lack thereof should impede the statehood process. That’s like calling for the revocation of Iran’s statehood until it agrees to stop supporting hostile actions in Israel. It would just never happen.

I think the crux of the problem, however, lies within how people that are pro-Israel tend to perceive the idea of a Palestinian state. In a JTA article, David Harris, director of the American Jewish Committee, said this:

If Palestinians are truly serious about a viable two-state deal, they should stop the counterproductive brinksmanship at the U.N. and return to the negotiating table now.

Think about that for a second. The fact that Palestine is trying to be recognized as, well, existing is being considered “brinksmanship” here. This is a completely peaceful option that should be supported by every member of the United Nations. After all, that’s how Israel became an official state in 1948. To say that it’s a provocative maneuver is to diminish the importance of the entire international system.

Even if you aren’t the most ardent supporter (or just supporter), it is by no means logical to say that it is “brinksmanship” to apply for statehood through the U.N.