Click here (BBC) to read about the latest (non)developments regarding Palestine's bid for full recognition at the United Nations... Do you think recognition would help or hinder Palestinian-Israeli relations? Why so?
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think recognition would help to put some accountability on representing Palestine accurately in the political scape. So the U.S. threatens to veto any wisp of this idea and Israel vehemently denies the usefulness of UN recognition. What the end of the article said about Palestine lacking in good leadership is true. The Palestinians, for lack of a better analogy, need their own Nelson Mandela. When they get a leader than unites them in the face of injustices, then things may be able to start to change. I found the end of the article disparaging the two-state solution a little bit to be interesting. Things certainly do seem to be going in that direction.
Was Yasser Arafat the one and only leader (so far) who could have led the Palestinians to some sort of stable agreement with Israel? Or was he too compromised by his violent past? What about Israeli prime ministers (several of whom are former IDF officers)? Does having blood on one's hands undermine or accentuate one's credibility with their peoples in regard to this conflict??
Yassar Arafat was the worst thing that ever happened to the Palestinians—a blood-soaked, corrupt tyrant along the lines of a Saddam or Papa and Sonny Assad. The fact that he got a Nobel Prize, that and Obama’s lifetime pre-achievement award from the same committee, make one wonder whether there’s something fishy going on in the councils of the upper elites.
I don't think there's a difference with recognizing the Jews as a people/nationality and giving them a state and the desire to recognize the Palestinians as a people/nationality and give them a state. The problem I see, as we have discussed in class numerous times, is the land. They both want the same land, and there isn't enough to go around to have two separate states (at least, if they did create 2 states, people on both sides wouldn't be happy). The idea to have a single, bi-national state is still a good option in my book, though there will still be unhappy people on both sides; though I feel they may be able to get along. (Taking from the Swiss model, as usual). -Shaun
4 comments:
I think recognition would help to put some accountability on representing Palestine accurately in the political scape. So the U.S. threatens to veto any wisp of this idea and Israel vehemently denies the usefulness of UN recognition. What the end of the article said about Palestine lacking in good leadership is true. The Palestinians, for lack of a better analogy, need their own Nelson Mandela. When they get a leader than unites them in the face of injustices, then things may be able to start to change. I found the end of the article disparaging the two-state solution a little bit to be interesting. Things certainly do seem to be going in that direction.
-Elika
Was Yasser Arafat the one and only leader (so far) who could have led the Palestinians to some sort of stable agreement with Israel? Or was he too compromised by his violent past? What about Israeli prime ministers (several of whom are former IDF officers)? Does having blood on one's hands undermine or accentuate one's credibility with their peoples in regard to this conflict??
Yassar Arafat was the worst thing that ever happened to the Palestinians—a blood-soaked, corrupt tyrant along the lines of a Saddam or Papa and Sonny Assad. The fact that he got a Nobel Prize, that and Obama’s lifetime pre-achievement award from the same committee, make one wonder whether there’s something fishy going on in the councils of the upper elites.
I don't think there's a difference with recognizing the Jews as a people/nationality and giving them a state and the desire to recognize the Palestinians as a people/nationality and give them a state. The problem I see, as we have discussed in class numerous times, is the land. They both want the same land, and there isn't enough to go around to have two separate states (at least, if they did create 2 states, people on both sides wouldn't be happy). The idea to have a single, bi-national state is still a good option in my book, though there will still be unhappy people on both sides; though I feel they may be able to get along. (Taking from the Swiss model, as usual).
-Shaun
Post a Comment