Palestinian Plan B

Back from break and feeling pretty refreshed!

Anyways, I saw this article (by Ethan Bronner) on the New York Times website and thought it was quite interesting.  Evidently, while Palestine waits for the US and Israel to work out an extension of the freeze on settlement building, its leaders are working towards finding other means of gaining support for its push for statehood.  Because Palestinians are becoming less and less optimistic about the two-state solution, they are turning to international bodies for support.  The idea is to appeal to the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the signatories of the Geneva Conventions for opposition to Israeli settlements and occupation and an admission of Palestinian statehood.  This support, if attained, would put pressure on Israel to make some kind of decision on the matter.  On the other side of the matter, Israel believes this to be a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords (which govern Israeli-Palestinian relations) and reject the move.  Ultimately, Israeli leadership wants Washington to take a firm stance against Palestine's Plan B. 

Personally, I like the move.  Firstly, I have little faith in the current push for peace and a two-state solution and think something else needs to be done.  I think Palestine has just cause to be fed up with Israel and its unwillingness to negotiate or seriously consider a Palestinian desire for statehood.  However, even if Palestine does get support from these international organizations, Israel is still not obligated to recognize Palestinian statehood, and some Israeli officials are saying that this move would "kill a negotiated settlement." 

All things considered, will this move achieve anything for Palestine?  And even if Palestine received recognition of statehood from other state and non-state actors, would a lack of recognition from Israel take something away from that?

Finally, I thought the last two paragraphs from the article were interesting.  Here they are in full:

"If the Palestinians were to go to the United Nations Security Council, they might well face an American veto. Therefore they might start in the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where dozens of countries would be likely to support them.

While that would be less binding, it would also provide a kind of symmetry — dark or poetic, depending on one’s perspective — with Israel. It was in the General Assembly in November 1947 that the Zionist movement achieved success through a resolution calling for the division of this land into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. Israel has long viewed that vote as the source of its international legitimacy."