Palestine

The Palestinians are taking their case for statehood to the UN. Most of Europe will support it, and it looks set to pass. Israel has been protesting, and managed to secure a UN veto.

Instead of stubbornly trying to prevent the inevitable however, Israel would be better off playing hardball: We are willing to support your bid, and even to sign a lasting agreement with your new state tomorrow, provided you meet our conditions: 1. control of the Old City of Jerusalem with a defensible perimeter around it to prevent a potential siege situation a la 1948 2. No Right of Return, however, Israel will give aid money to a repatriation fund run by your government, and will give numerous aid to your government. This sum should a) be distributed over a number of years to provide long-term aid b) be reasonable so as not to strain the Israeli government or its economy 3. working out the details of border control between the two countries.

This would make Israel look reasonable and peace-seeking both to Palestinians and to the larger world. It would also be a way of taking an inevitable fact and using it to get some benefits for Israel. As it is however, Israel can not support the Palestinian bid: It has already invested too much in convincing the US to oppose the bid. Doing an about face now will seem fickle and ungrateful, and therefore risk alienating Israel's best ally. Of course, Israel shouldn't have been using its political capital with the US in order to prevent statehood to begin with, but that's beside the point.

I would also urge Palestinians to aggressively pursue negotiations with Israel: The simple declaration of statehood sans negotiations will not change the daily lives of most Palestinians or help the financially ailing Palestinian Authority. Neither will it result in a step-down of Israeli troops - if anything it will result in a step-up, as security fears mount. True, statehood means the Palestinians could urge the UN to pass sanctions or take Israeli government officials to the ICC, but the UN is a slow bureaucracy ineffective at passing resolutions, and at enforcing those it does pass. Additionally, the US veto would be in place when it comes to sanctions, and prosecutions at the ICC don't stop a government from pursuing a certain policy: It took years of genocide in Sudan before the ICC began prosecuting Bashir. Even now, a final verdict has not been reached, and his government continues to pursue murderous policies - which means that the ICC's effect on the daily lives of the people whose rights Bashir violates has been negligible.

For these reasons, it is in the Palestinian people's best interest for their government to negotiate with the one party that can improve their daily lives, very quickly: Israel.

It takes two to tango. Time for both parties to come to the table.

Gun Control

Having read about a shoot-out in Nevada, involving an Ak-47 and a man whose family was concerned about his mental health, I am reminded of the tragic shooting in Arizona, involving an automatic weapon and a man about whom mental health concerns were raised.

As my heart goes out to the victims and their families, I hope that our society will start taking both gun control and mental health issues seriously. I firmly believe in the right of Americans to bear arms, but we must control a) which type of arms - civilians should not have military-grade weapons b) when such arms can be used and carried c) who can have such arms. There need to be stricter regulations about who can get permits, and stricter enforcement of those regulations. Mental health exams and background checks must be required. Additionally, gun-owners should be subjected to checks on their gun - every two year or so, a federal or state inspector should view where and how the gun is stored, since storing guns safely is an issue. This would also be an opportunity to chat with the gun-owner and make sure there are no red flags - if there are red flags, then there should be an investigation, during which the owner's gun may be taken away for safekeeping, to be returned to them if the investigation yields no results, or if they undergo treatment and are pronounced as properly rehabilitated by a mental health professional. The owner would be given notice - but short notice - about the inspection, and could delay it if able to prove they are on vacation, etc. Or perhaps owning a gun could require a yearly mental health checkup. It is true, such inspections and checkups are an invasion of privacy - but while Americans have the right to bear arms, individuals who choose to own guns must bear (no pun intended) the consequences: They are acquiring weapons that make them a potential public threat, and therefore must be willing to be monitored to make sure they do not in fact pose such a threat. Similarly, if the American taxpayer is not willing to foot the bill for making sure that the right to bear arms is carried out safely, he or she must not use that right.

As I write about yearly mental health checks for gun-owners, I have to say, I wish they were mandated and covered by health insurance for most of society. Our federal and local governments have invested less and less in mental healthcare, and we as a society are paying the price. Too many people are walking around with untreated mental illnesses. The combination of rampant untreated mental illness and available weapons is extremely combustible, not to mention fatal.

However, leaving aside the public safety threat, we as a society suffer in many ways from lack of mental healthcare - not only because many individuals are suffering, but also because each untreated patient brings along with them a cadre of friends and relatives whose lives are also affected - not to mention the wasted potential of both creative and economic productivity that is not being actualized due to mental health issues. It is only when we stop stigmatizing mental illness, and start taking it seriously, that we as a society will be able to feel safe, and to truly realize our potential as a nation.