Palestine's UN Bid: a Win-Win situation?

The recent move by Palestine to fight for a vote in the U.N. has caused much speculation on who will win in this politically-messy situation. Will Palestine be accepted in the U.N.? What is their underlying strategy and will this strategy work? What should the U.S. do about this? A recent article in the Los Angeles Times attempts to answer these questions, but fails to correctly do so because of several underlying assumptions the authors make.

Written by Barbara Walter and Andrew Kydd, both professors of political science, this article begins by stating that Palestine's attempt to be recognized by the U.N. will fail. Yet, they argue, this bid is merely the beginning of a deeper strategy: a little diplomatic arm-twisting that will bring justice to Palestine in a peaceful manner.


The strategy is to gain world-wide support and eventually pressure the U.S. and Israel to give way. They even go so far as to say that, "if the U.S. were more concerned with peace in the Middle East (and in protecting its interests) than with domestic politics, it would support the Palestinian bid for statehood." Clearly stated, this article wants its readers to believe that Palestine is offering a legitimate and peaceful solution to a long-unsolved problem, while the U.S. and Israel are standing in the way blocking something that will happen eventually anyways.


Unfortunately, as tempting as this view might be, it is unsubstantiated by facts and based rather on two key assumptions.


Assumption #1- Israel's only goal is to keep the land and push Palestinians out.
While this assumption may on the surface seem plausible, a brief history of Israel and Palestine's relations shows the opposite. By 1947, thousands of Jewish refugees from Russia and Eastern Europe had fled to Palestine, then under England's guidance, and begun to buy and cultivate land from the Arab residents. That year, the U.N. offered the Arabs statehood. Instead the Arabs chose war in an attempt to annihilate the Jews. Of course the Jews, tired of attempted annihilation, won the war and all the land except for Gaza and the West Bank. Palestine, with the help of other Arab nations, tried yet again to defeat Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 only to have the territories they had before occupied. In the years leading up till now, multiple negotiation attempts have been made by Israel and the U.S. In many instances, Israel has asked for peace in order for the return of the land only to be refused.


Assumption #2- Israel will eventually succumb to political pressure and give up the land.
Once again, this assumption is unfounded in light of Israel's history. Time and time again from its beginning, Israel has withstood external pressure. Just this past week we have seen Israel defy political pressure by allowing 1000 more houses to be built in occupied territory. With this sort of political independence, is Israel likely to suddenly begin giving in?


Without these two assumptions, this article has no way to validate its arguments. While it makes a good attempt to address a particularly complex and controversial issue, it unfortunately leaves much to be sought after in terms of background and facts. 

Flawless or Futile? Two Views On Obama's New Jobs Plan

While it's easy to ignore the negatives and embrace the positives of an issue (or vice versa), it is important that we understand both sides before we express an opinion. This especially applies to the new jobs plan that President Obama has just proposed. Is his plan flawless or futile?

According to The Entrepreneur, the President's new plan will be extremely successful in growing jobs in the small business sector. Tax cuts for business owners and workers as well as incentives for small businesses to hire are the primary plans for small business job growth.

Meanwhile, The Heritage Foundation says the new plan has trouble in store for charity organizations. Because of the high cost of the bill ($447 billion), Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy (those making at least $200,000 annually) by lowering the rate at which taxes can be deducted from charitable gifts from 35 percent to 28 percent.* 

What does this mean for the nonprofits? As the wealthy taxpayers are being taxed for the donations, they will be less and less likely to give, which will result in a significant drop in the nonprofit sector's money supply. In addition to this problem, the article quotes that nonprofits hire almost 10 percent of the national workforce. With nonprofits in financial trouble, many of those jobs will disappear.

The President's jobs plan has the potential to both create and destroy jobs. Should we put the jobs of 10 percent of the population at risk for the possibility of creating more jobs? 

Read these articles and decide for yourself. Don't forget to leave your thoughts in the comments!

*For example: "American citizens in the highest marginal personal income tax bracket are taxed at a rate of 35 percent. If they donate to a charitable organization, they can receive a tax deduction at the same 35 percent rate. For example, if a couple in this marginal bracket gives $10,000 to a hospital, they can write off $3,500 when filing their taxes." (Heritage Foundation)