Palestinian Statehood

The New York Times published an op ed piece today arguing against recognition by the UN of Palestine as a State.

The article rightly points out that Israeli leadership is to blame for the breakdown in the peace process: "we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts..." Unfortunately, the article goes on to suggest that the "best path to statehood remains negotiations" and that Palestine should not seek Statehood.

Where have negotiations gotten the Palestinians in the last Forty-Four Years? A few examples:

- More settlers on land that the international community recognizes as belonging to Palestine - not Israel.

- Operations such as "Cast Lead" - the type of community wide reprisal that the Nazi's were known to commit - which resulted in the deaths of 320 children under 18 and over 100 women.  It also saw the use of white phosphorus by Israel, which has been recognized as a war crime because of it indiscriminate effect on the target population and manner in which it kills - literally burning a hold through a person.

- An apartheid state for Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.

The Palestinians share in the blame - there is public support in Gaza and the West Bank for terrorist attacks against innocent Jews, as well as support for Hamas - an organization that has sworn itself in support of the demise of Israel.

But to say that Israel is justified is the same as saying that a man who shoots an unarmed kid who enters his fenced in yard is justified in the killing because Florida Law allows him to "defend his castle."

So what is the argument that the NY Times comes up with to oppose Palestinian Statehood?

"To get full U.N. membership the Palestinians have to win Security Council approval. The administration has said it will veto any resolution — ensuring the further isolation of Israel and Washington. If they fail in the Security Council, the Palestinians have said they will ask the General Assembly for enhanced observer status as a nonmember state. Even the more modest General Assembly vote, which the Palestinians are sure to win, would pave the way for them to join dozens of U.N. bodies and conventions, and could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court. But Israel would still control Palestinian territory, leaving the Palestinians disaffected after the initial euphoria."

In other words - (1) the United States and Israel will look bad because they oppose Statehood, (2) the Palestinians are likely to win in the General Assembly and thus gain rights that Israel will not permit them to have (territorial sovereignty), and (3) Palestine will be able to hold Israel accountable in International Courts of Justice.

Pretty awful reasons to oppose Statehood.

I want Israel to succeed and be a Jewish State for the rest of time.  The way Israel is going about trying to protect itself is nothing more than ensuring that will not happen.  Only internationally recognized borders for Israel and Palestine will ensure Israel's survival. 

Only then, when terrorists attack Israel and violate is sovereignty (which undoubtedly will happen), will Israel be able to turn to the UN and muster International support for its necessary reactions to such an attack, and if necessary go to war - with proper justification.