Comedian Ray Hanania's Jerusalem Post editorial about his "candidacy" for the PA is a perfect example of the wonderland that the Middle East can be sometimes.
The past week has seen threats, taken seriously by the West, that PA president Mahmoud Abbas would resign. Then, in response to Israeli indignation over the ordeal, Salam Fayad threatened...a state. Despite a Palestinian state being part of the Israeli position in negotiations, Israel not only took the threat seriously but criticized the plan, under which Palestinians would take responsibility for national sovereignty, security, and their economy. Which is exactly what Israel would have wanted them to do in an ideal world anyway. Except not actually because Israel wants some control. But not so much that they couldn't have just called the Palestinian's bluff on this one.
The article actually has nothing to do with this whole ordeal, but it mirrors the same kind of craziness the whole mess represents. Despite being from an American Palestinian comedian, the article is more moderate, pragmatic, and well-reasoned than 99% of discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Which of course means it's ludicrous anti-Israel screed in the eyes of the talkbackers, who levy all sorts of ideological assaults upon the peace plan which was not only a) written by a comedian but b) is actually pretty moderate and based on the accepted positions of most governments in the world. What kind of situation has the conflict in the Middle East become when a unilaterally declared Palestinian state is a threat, and the best peace plans come from the comedians, who are then criticized not for being comedians but for being reasonable?