Kinsman: Is a UN resolution on Palestinian statehood a step forward or backward for the Israel-Palestine conflict?

By: /
18 September, 2011
Jeremy Kinsman
By: Jeremy Kinsman
CIC Distinguished Fellow

Philip Stephens writes in the Financial Times that Palestinian statehood “should be the pro-Israel position” because real peace in this 63-year-old conflict demands a Palestinian state. The international community’s promise of a two-state solution is stymied by the Netanyahu-Lieberman coalition’s refusal of sincere negotiations with the Palestinians and aggressive expansion of illegal settlements in what would be the Palestinian state. Tzipi Livni, opposition leader, rightly blames Netanyahu himself for the UN vote. Though just a political stunt with little practical consequence, it gets magnified by media into a narrative of political winners and losers.

Regrettably, a perceived loser is Obama, obliged by US Congress politics to veto full statehood, undoing efforts by the US to connect to young Arabs. But Israel loses more, government intransigence having deepened the country’s isolation. One hopes Israeli voters, already vexed by the country’s economics, will soon throw this unpleasant coalition government out and give Israelis and Palestinians the chance at real peace they have so long deserved.

Before you click away, we’d like to ask you for a favour … 


Open Canada is published by the Canadian International Council, but that’s only the beginning of what the CIC does. Through its research and live events hosted by its 18 branches across the country, the CIC is dedicated to engaging Canadians from all walks of life in an ongoing conversation about Canada’s place in the world.

By becoming a member, you’ll be joining a community of Canadians who seek to shape Canada’s role in the world, and you’ll help Open Canada continue to publish thoughtful and provocative reporting and analysis.

Join us