The Palestinian Authority is making a bid for full U.N. membership, stating it is the most viable option at this time. Other options could include return to negotiations, surrender, return to violence, or an appeal to the international community. A P.A. official stated that Palestine has cultivated a "culture of nonviolence" under current leader Mr. Abbas and that Israel is not willing to make necessary compromises that would make negotiations a feasible option. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed that he thinks their bid for U.N. membership is futile, but that Mr. Abbas left a door open for future progress in the peace procress.

I'm not sure if the bid has a realistic chance of getting through the Security Council, as the U.S. is unlikely to support it. I'm not sure what the actual implications of gaining full U.N. membership would be, either. Would that mean the international community would officially recognize Palestine as a sovereign state? Is that even possible without a definitive territory? I believe Israel would react negatively to the success of their bid and peace in the Middle East would be on more of a tipping point than it normally is. However, I am not sure what other resort the Palestinian Authority really has at this point after over half a century of fighting to re-establish a Palestinian state in that area. Gaining full U.N. membership would at least give them more of an equal stand in the international community, even if it doesn't actually gain them the full powers and independence of a sovereign state. Its one step in the right direction, for Palestine.

Week One Topic: New Libyan Ally?

In the Friday September 2, 2011 New York Times, an article entitled "In Libya, Former Enemy is Recast in Role of Ally" is displayed front and center on the front page. The article describes the transition of one man, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, from the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was considered a terrorist group allied with al-Quaeda, to a key partner in leading the new Libyan transition counsel with our government's blessing and aid. He claims to have been tortured by the CIA and then kept in solitary confinement by the Libyan government for six years in horrendous conditions, but now states he has forgiven the U.S. and is willing to work in partnership with them in the future.

By contrast, Mandela Nelson was not considered a terrorist by the U.S. government, even though he organized and led guerrilla attacks against the apartheid government in South Africa. I would need to do more research on Mr. Belhaj to speak authoritatively and obviously there are differences in the international climate regarding Mr. Mandela's fight as compared to Mr. Belhaj's crusade in Libya. However, this article raises disturbing questions for me: Was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group labelled a terrorist group primarily for its religious affiliations? If it had been a non-religious freedom fighting group, would the U.S. have been more supportive of its goals and actions? Or, if there was legitimate intelligence justifying the group's classification as a terrorist group with close ties to al Quaeda, why is the U.S. government willing to support its leadership in the transitory government in Libya? What assurances, if any, have been provided to prove that they will not pose a future threat to U.S. national security or that they will prove to be a better stewardship of power in Libya than their predecessors?