Regarding unilateral recognition of Palestine

This is a difficult post to write because it concerns complex issues. I am on record as being very supportive of the United Nation, because I consider it to be the "last best hope of mankind". Therefore, unlike say the second Bush administration, were I in politics I would "abide by" decisions rendered by the majority of committee decisions rendered by that august body.

This autumn, the UN will consider whether to grant Palestine unilateral "statehood" recognition, irrespective of Israel's "say" in the matter, notwithstanding the fact that this decision could have deleterious effects on Israel's security, to say the least. I think it would be a grave mistake to just wave a magic wand and grant the terrorists of Palestine the nomenclature of "statehood", overlooking the human tragedy that this "state" has committed, and continues to commit, over the years. This said, if this decision (goodness forbid) occurs, and the terrorists of Palestine get UN recognition of "statehood" which would sort of be an international "reward" for suicide bombings, however deplorable this would be, I would have to live with that, for, however imperfect the UN necessarily is, being made up of imperfect nations comprised of imperfect peoples, it nonetheless remains the one thing standing between our species and nuclear annihilation, and thus sometimes one has to vomit and live with some things, however deplorable they might be to reason.

Let me first say a couple of things about this notion of "statehood" for that motley collection of terrorists groups on the West Bank and Gaza who fancy themselves "Palestinians" deserving of "statehood". First of all, I believe in democracy, and I think people should have their voice heard, in the voting booth, the blogosphere, etc., but not in the form of blowing innocent people up in buses on their way to work. Therefore I do want peaceful people from Palestinian territories to have their voice heard. The problem arises when there are far more violent people in said territories than peaceful people, or, at least, the violent are the more vocal and have more power there, for whatever reason, and whatever the actual statistics might be. So, how best can peaceful people have their voice heard, when their leaders are, frankly, murderers - that is the question. Giving murderers "statehood" without concession seems to any rational person counterproductive. Ideally, and we don't live in an ideal world, but, to me, ideally, the Palestinian groups in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem should be able to have their voice heard in part of a greater Israel, an Israel that encompassed that entire territory, but which was flexible enough on both sides to allow both people living there of Israeli and Palestinian descent to have their voices heard, in the voting booth, etc. That is the American way, after all, the idea of a "melting pot" where people of different backgrounds can live and work and vote and blog in peace and harmony, albeit having disagreements now and again. So this issue of "statehood" for terrorists would not arise to begin with. But that is the ideal world, the American slash Roman ideal, and we don't live in that world, though perhaps Marcus Lacinius Crassus will rise from the grave to save us all one day and restore Roman democracy (OK, inside joke there!). In the real world the facts are these: Israel is a democracy where people have freedom, the freedom to work where they want, to worship as they choose, to love whom they want to love (and yes, that includes having gay pride parades in Tel Aviv). It is a place where women are treated equally, for example, and not forced to wear towels on their heads. In Palestinian regions, this is different. People are enslaved. Women are not free. Gays are non-existent or quickly put out of existence at any rate. It is a slave-state, a theocratic state. (Greg Bahnsen's wet dream, basically, another inside reference there.)

So we have a free nation and a slave society. Now this slave society wants the UN to recognize it, even thought this recognition could endanger the security of the free nation that is Israel. Like I said before, the UN is imperfect but it is preferable to nuclear annihilation, which is its only alternative I think, so, of course, I support, and will continue to support the UN. But I do very much hope it will not reward terrorism with a recognition of statehood that does not also take into account Israel's security.

Now, my personal idea, if we can not have the above-mentioned ideal situation and we must divide up land in some way, is that Israel must have control of both the Gaza strip and the ENTIRE city of Jerusalem, and let the Palestinian "state" reside on the West Bank. This would stop Gaza from being, as it now is, controlled by the terrorist group Hamas, and prevent Israel from being threatened by both the West Bank to the east, and Gaza to the southwest, and she would only have the West Bank to defend against, if push came to shove. Also, any long term peace cannot have a divided Jerusalem, with some of it being in a democracy and some of it being in a slave state, a la the divided Berlin. This is not tenable. Israel must have all of Jerusalem so that freedom can endure, and that Israel can endure. Palestinians now living in Gaza or Palestinian parts of Jerusalem should be integrated into Israeli society with full rights and freedoms, provided they are law-abiding. Those who don't like that can move to the West Bank, wherein a Palestinian terrorism "state" could be established, however non-idyllic that night be, which, at least, would have lesser damage than the one currently being proposed. That is my two cents anyway.

But a unilateral declaration of terrorist "statehood" by the UN this autumn would not only endanger Israel, it would in a sense endanger all of us. Let me explain that. In New Hampshire, there is a slogan, "Live free or die". Well, at least by European or American standards, most of the middle east is not remotely "free". Only Israel is. To compromise Israel is not just to compromise the security and freedom of a great and noble people, it is also to compromise the human race itself, for it is at least in part from Israel, that, historically, notions of human rights and freedom first developed, and, it is in Israel today that these principles are carried forth more so than in its immediate environs.

Remember that old saying, Cadet et Collesseus, Cadet et Roma. Cadet et Roma, Cadet et Mundus. "When falls the Colosseum, then falls Rome. When falls Rome, then falls the world." Well, sweetheart, it happened. Rome fell, and we had a thousand years of darkness, until Roman - and indeed Judeac - principles of science and democracy were rediscovered.

I truly hope the UN does not risk a tragedy on the scale of the fall of Rome by allowing terrorists to pose as being a legitimate "state". I truly also hope the US Presidential Administration has the guts to oppose such a travesty. If they do not, then I would remind them that an election occurs next year, and though in many ways I consider myself "liberal" at least on social issues, I am giving fair warning right here and now that I will reconsider support for the current administration if they go along with this epochal miscarriage of justice now being considered. If heaven forbid this were to occur, and terrorists be given their own seat at the UN, well, I would be disappointed beyond all measure, but I would still support the UN, which imperfect, is still the only hope we have of not seeing nuclear night, in my opinion. I would at least hope in any event that the saner members of that august body continue to work for Israel's security, and, by extension, the security, and more importantly, the freedom, of all of us.