"The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.". Article 15 of the Palestinian charter

A Unilaterally created state of Palestine?

New Year 2015

Palestinian Statehood Effort motion fails at the UN

Israel's UN Ambassador - Dore Gold

The Palestinian draft resolution that was voted down by the UN Security Council was unacceptable to Israel for two essential reasons. First, all Israeli governments have insisted that any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be reached through direct negotiations between the parties.
In substance, the draft resolution also sought to prejudge the outcome of any future negotiations. How can you have a Security Council resolution that decides Israel’s future borders on the basis of the 1967 lines and in the same breath assert that you are going to have a negotiation over borders? What is there left to negotiate? UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, did not require Israel to fully withdraw from the territories it captured in a war of self-defense. Complete article

A non negotiated Two State Solution

October 2014, after the Summer 2014 conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the Palestinians, under Mahmoud Abbas were pursuing several diplomatic initiatives to bypass a negotiated settlement and have a state of Palestine declared by the United Nations; or just the Nations.

If the International community creates or recognizing a Palestinian state, completely bypassing negotiations with Israel, it will free the Palestinians from any requirement to restrain violence and incitement of their youth.

The UK, Swedish and Irish Parliamentary Recognition of Palestine

– Legally, Historically and Politically Questionable

Ambassador. Alan Baker 

The British House of Commons, the Irish Upper House and the Swedish prime minister would appear to contradict themselves by recognizing that negotiations are still pending, but nevertheless at the same time prejudging the outcome of the very negotiation they purport to support, by calling for recognition of the state of Palestine. Clearly no such a Palestinian state or sovereign entity exists and thus cannot logically be recognized.

Similarly, no international treaty, convention or binding international resolution or determination has ever been adopted or entered into, that determines that the territories in dispute are indeed Palestinian. In this context, the Palestinian leadership itself is committed, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to negotiate the issue of the permanent status of the territory.

Accordingly, the outcome of such negotiations and the ultimate status of the territory cannot be arbitrarily imposed by external parties, including the UK, Irish or Swedish parliaments, or the UN.

The accepted norms and requirements of international law regarding the characteristics of statehood are set out in international law in article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. The Palestinians clearly do not meet the requirements set out in this convention.

Click here to read the full article.

Ambassador Alan Baker participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, and served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Article from Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs

 

Looking at the process in the United Kingdom

Extracts from an article by Melanie Philips - Perfidious Albion reverts to type

By 274 votes to 12, Britain's MPs voted to “recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel” - although most MPs didn’t turn up for the vote at all.

The prime minister, David Cameron, who abstained, says it won’t alter British government policy “to recognize a Palestinian state at the moment of our choosing,” whatever that means.

So does it matter? Yes. Mahmoud Abbas is using unilateral recognition of “Palestine” as a weapon of war to isolate and choke Israel to death.

To head off a damaging split in the opposition Labor Party, the motion was amended to support Palestine recognition “as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.”

But a state of Palestine cannot precede a two-state solution. It has to be negotiated into existence, not least because of the evidence that its real purpose is as a beachhead to destroy Israel.

Unilaterally declaring a Palestine state tears up the Oslo treaty committing both sides to such a negotiation, thus destroying the peace process by its own lights.

Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said (in Arabic) that the Palestinians will never accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. His Palestinian Authority glorifies those who murder Israelis, and teaches Palestinian children to hate and kill Jews.

Remember - both Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah threatens to exterminate Israel. The destruction of Israel is still in the charters of both Hamas and the PA. Last year, Fatah official Tawfiq Tirawi declared on PA TV that “the two-state solution does not exist,”

If Israel were to depart the West Bank it would be overrun by Hamas or other Islamists, maybe even Islamic State.

By this vote, MPs have endorsed a racist Palestine state ethnically cleansed of Jews, encouraged Palestinian rejectionism, and put rocket fuel behind the Israel-bashing and Jew-hatred provoked by the unprecedented demonization of Israel based on lies, distortion and bigotry.

The MPs ignored the fact that the sole reason there is no Palestine state alongside Israel is that the Arabs won’t accept it, even though such a state was offered in 1937, 1948, 2000 and 2008. The Arab and Palestinian answer has always been terrorism and war. Israel would accept a Palestine state tomorrow if the Palestinians showed they really had abandoned their goal of exterminating Israel. The problem is that they have not.

There was no mention of Abbas’s rejectionism; instead, harsh words against the settlements policy which apparently “makes it hard for its friends to make the case that Israel is committed to peace.”

Remember that this vote followed the dreadful summer, when Hamas blood libels promulgated by a compliant media incited an explosion of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred.

With this vote, Britain has reverted to historic type. The vote merely confirms that, with its fragmenting national identity, cultural disintegration and moral confusion, Britain is now the weakest link in the defense of civilization.

UK Labour Leader Miliband set to be guest speaker at pro-Palestinian dinner
Jerusalem Post - By JERRY LEWIS - extracts

What Miliband will say to lobbyists will be listened to with great care, not least of by those whom he addressed not five months ago at the Labour Friends of Israel annual lunch.

Barely days after Labour Party leader Ed Miliband led two thirds of his party’s MPs through the Commons voting lobbies in support of early recognition of a “Palestinian” state, he appears to be willing to rub more salt in the wounds of the pro-Israel faction in his party.

Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s website invited people to attend a £150-a-head champagne reception and celebratory dinner in Westminster’s Church House, arranged by ‘Labour Friends of Palestine, for Labor’s pro-Palestinian lobby, with opposition leader Miliband as one of their guest speakers. Milliband is due to appear along with Manuel Hassassian, who is described as the “Palestinian Ambassador,” though officially in the UK can only be referred to as the Palestinian Representative.

What Miliband will say to lobbyists will be listened to with great care, not least of by those whom he addressed not five months ago at the Labour Friends of Israel annual lunch – where after four years of admitting he had a “complicated relationship” with Israel, he seemed to indicate after his recent visit to the Jewish state, that he now “understood” what being a “true friend of Israel” was all about.

Sadly, his definition, instanced by his stance toward Israel’s self-defence during this summer’s Gaza war and by forcing his party to support the Palestinian recognition vote in the Commons earlier this month, will not be shared by the many Israelis angered and perplexed by the way Labour – which hitherto, had always claimed and demonstrated a close friendship with Israel, had changed policy with neither a reference to the party’s policy making machine, nor the agreement of its shadow cabinet.

Miliband and Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander, (who party insiders have indicated was the author of the changed Labor stance on the Palestinian issue) know that by effectively sponsoring the parliamentary recognition motion, they have lost much of the goodwill and potentially the electoral backing of those who reside in the UK, who support not only Israel but also its participation in concluding a negotiated two-state solution.

Israeli politicians too, will begin watching the UK opinion polls to see if Miliband can win next May’s general election, since a Labour government or Labour-led administration would likely make recognition of a Palestinian state – regardless of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – a high priority foreign policy objective.

 

Earlier (2012) Material from ICEJ, HaAretz, and Israel Today

Since the Obama administration in the USA publicly admitted that it had failed to break the deadlock in the peace process, the Palestinians have been trying to convince the world to recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally, without the approval of Jerusalem or Washington. 

The Palestinian leadership under President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is now using: "diplomacy instead of terror."

The late PLO leader Yasser Arafat used this tactic effectively when he ostensibly abandoned terror and opted for peace with Israel. Under the Oslo Accords of 1993, Arafat established a foothold in the Land of Israel, moving into Jericho and the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians have already achieved resounding success in South America. Brazil was the first South American country to recognize an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, and then the dominos started falling: Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Chile and Guyana followed suit.

Colombia announced that it would not pre-emptively recognize the creation of a future Palestinian state.

The US rejects unilateral moves and says peace can only be reached through negotiations. But some officials in Jeru­salem believe the kingpin will fall sooner rather than later. "I would not be surprised if within a year the whole world will support a Palestinian state, including the United States," said Cabinet Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer of the dovish Labor Party.

The Palestinian strategy is: South America first, then Europe. And it is an attainable goal. European countries are already upgrading the diplomatic status of the Palestinian Authority.

"The level of representation will be developed to a diplomatic mission and the head of the mission will be called an ambassador," said Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki. Spain, France, Portugal and Norway have already taken this step and Britain has announced plans to do so as well. At this point, however, the European Union does not plan to recognize a Palestinian state or upgrade Palestinian rep­resentation offices to the status of embassies.

Buoyed by these diplomatic advances, the Palestinians are considering a resolution to the UN Security Council calling on all United Nations members to recognize a Palestinian state by the end of the year. The trump card is whether the US would veto such a resolution. Considering the hostility of the Obama administration, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US would abstain, effectively bringing international recognition of "Palestine" to fruition.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to all Israeli embassies and diplomatic missions abroad. Israeli diplomats were told to warn their host countries that "unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state was taking away any incentive for the Palestinians to return to peace talks with Israel."

There has been a Palestinian declaration of independence before, on November 15", 1988, accompanied by fireworks and celebrations. Yasser Arafat declared the state in Algeria, nearly a year after the start of the First Intifada (Palestinian uprising). Subsequently, more than 100 countries officially recognized the State of Palestine. But without sovereign control of the territory, there is still no Palestinian state.

Today, 22 years later, the Palestinians are trying for a second time to declare a state. But this time, they already have 45 percent of the biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria and all of the Gaza Strip. And with South America leading the way and Europe joining the bandwagon, Israel fears the domino effect will continue around the world.

Israel accused the Palestinians of conducting political warfare.

"Even if we offer the Palestinians Tel Aviv and a withdrawal to the 1947 borders, they will find a reason not to sign a peace agreement with us," said Foreign Minister Lieberm an. "Under today's political circumstances a peace treaty with the Palestinians is not

"As long as words are sufficient - fine," Mohammed Dahlan, a senior official of the ruling Palestinian Fatah faction, told Israel Today "If not, we will take up our weapons again."

"Arafat's strategy to bring Israel to its knees through violence failed," says Dahlan. "We received more land through negotiations than through armed struggle. Nonviolent resistance makes it much easier for us to win the world over to our cause. We will convince one country after the other until they all stand behind a Palestinian state. It's the domino effect. But if Gandhi's strategy should fail, we will turn back to Arafat's strategy of using force against Israel."

Abbas said the same thing to 2,200 Fatah delegates at a conference in Ramallah in August. "Although peace is our choice," he said, "we reserve the right to [armed] resistance, which is legitimate under international law."

Russia Recognizes `Palestine'

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited the biblical town of Jericho and endorsed a Palestinian state. In fact, he said [Communist] Russia recognized Palestinian independence in 1988.

"Russia's position remains unchanged," he told senior Palestinian Authority officials. "Russia made its choice a long time ago ...We supported and will support the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent state with its capital in East Jerusalem."

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe declared that France won't recognize a Palestinian state on its own, and that such a decision must be taken together with the European Union. However, the governments of France, Ireland, Britain, Norway, Denmark and Spain decided to upgrade their relations with Palestine, but did not go as far as recognizing a Palestinian state.

Several South American countries have already recognized an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 Green line.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and his Spanish counterpart Miguel Moratinos are promoting an initiative by which the European Union would recognize a Palestinian state, declared by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in 18 months, even before negotiations for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are concluded.

The initiative is based on a plan by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to establish a Palestinian state in two years, which is the time he estimates is needed for the development of state institutions, economic reforms and a completion of the necessary

Kouchner told the Journal du Dimanche in an interview. "France is training Palestinian police, businesses are being created in the West Bank... It follows that one can envision the proclamation soon of a Palestinian state, and its immediate recognition by the international community, even before negotiating its borders."

"If by mid-2011, the political process has not ended the [Israeli] occupation, I would bet that the developed state of Palestinian infrastructure and institutions will be such that the pressure will force Israel to give up its occupation," he added.

International Monetary Fund - IMF and World Bank

The Palestinian Authority got an endorsement from the International Monetary Fund, which said that the authority was fully capable of running the economy of an independent state. The fund said, for the first time, that it viewed the authority as “now able to conduct the sound economic policies expected of a future well-functioning Palestinian state, given its solid track record in reforms and institution-building in the public finance and financial areas.”

The World Bank, says, “If the Palestinian Authority maintains its performance in institution-building and delivery of public services, it is well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”

Palestinians Proving good Government

Another move is proving Fatah and Hamas can work together - Joel C Rosenberg

Instead of spending the last 18 months engaging in peace talks with Israel, PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas has spent the last several months engaged in secret peace talks with rival Hamas, the radical Islamic terrorist group that calls for the annihilation of the Jewish State. The talks, brokered by Egyptian intelligence, concluded with an announcement today that Fatah (PLO) and Hamas have sealed a unity agreement that some reporters are describing as "Fatah and Hamas agree to historic Palestinian reconciliation deal. "

In theory, the deal helps pave the way for the Palestinians soon to unilaterally declare a state encompassing the Fatah-controlled territory of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the Hamas-controlled territory of Gaza, and assert their capital in East Jerusalem. They will claim that their unity signals they are ready to govern themselves and assume the responsibilities of statehood.

One this is for certain: the Palestinian leadership is taking yet another stop away from making peace with Israel. “The Palestinian Authority has to choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas, Prime Minister Netanyahu told reporters. Peace with both of them is impossible, because Hamas aspires to destroy the state of Israel and says so openly.

What's not clear is whether the U.S. will continue to provide some $450 million in foreign aid to the Palestinians since it officially considers Hamas a terrorist organization and has long refused to talk to Hamas much less help fund it. Members of Congress will likely be overwhelmingly opposed to any contact with Hamas, and rightly so. The Obama administration, however, will be tempted to act as though the Fatah-Hamas agreement is a positive development and try to paper over the differences. To do so would be a tragic mistake, but not the administration's first, and not likely its last in the region.

The United Nations moves

On 29th March 2011, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reiterated that the United Nations expects Israel to immediately surrender to internationally-backed Arab demands that it relinquish all claims to the Jews’ biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria and half of their ancient capital of Jerusalem.

The Jewish presence in the so-called “West Bank,” which includes the eastern half of Jerusalem, is “morally and politically unsustainable, and must end,” Ban insisted during a press conference in Uruguay.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are moving forward plans to unilaterally declare an independent state with the support of the UN, outside the framework of a land-for-peace deal with Israel.

Palestinian leaders indicated that they will make such a move later this year. The motion is almost certain to be shot down in the UN Security Council, where the US exercises veto power, but will be widely adopted by the UN General Assembly, which most will see as more than adequate for “Palestine” to be declared a state.

Many within Israel are urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop playing the diplomatic game by the Arab world’s rules, and to instead begin insisting that the UN approach the peace process from the viewpoint that the West Bank and Jerusalem are disputed territories, where Jews have just as much, if not more, claim than local Palestinian Arabs.

If the UN General Assembly recognizes “Palestine,” Israel may be forced into desperate action.

Next week they hope that at a meeting of the so-called Quartet — the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia — an endorsement of negotiations based on the 1967 lines will emerge.

The Palestinians say that if September comes and nothing has changed they will apply to the United Nations for membership.

UNESCO

31st October 2011
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) held a vote that resulted in 'Palestine' being added as a full member, despite not being a state recognized by the UN. The Palestinian Authority had pushed for the vote in the hope of building momentum for their bid to join the UN General Assembly in a vote tentatively scheduled for later this month. 

Votes against - The United States, Canada and Germany

Votes for - Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa and France

Abstained - Britain .

Israel had argued that the vote would politicize a UN agency meant to be educational. 

Robbie Sabel, INSS 11/04/11

There are reports that this September, the Palestinian delegation to the UN, which has observer status at the organization, will attempt to introduce a new "Uniting for Peace" resolution. There are a number of possible scenarios for such a resolution. The most likely possibility would by a call for recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries. In fact, a 2003 Arab sponsored General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" resolution has already called for "Affirming the necessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949." If adopted, a new such resolution would grant the Palestinians further international support for their demand for a return to the 1967 lines.

See also UNESCO on United Nations - concerning UNESCO designating Jewish holy places as Palestinian sites.

UN

Early April 2011 - The office of UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East, Roberty Serry published a report saying the Palestinian Authority is ready to govern a state of its own and the only thing that stands in its way is the continued Israeli "occupation."

 

What Are the Palestinians Planning after September?

The day after PA Chairman Abbas delivered the Palestinian Authority's request for statehood to the UN, PA TV, which is controlled directly by Abbas' office, broadcast a map that erases Israel and envisions Palestinian sovereignty over all of Israel.

Remember too Abass' declaration that no Jews will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state

(an Apartheid state ? No; worse - Judenrien)

 

A prediction made before September

Pinhas Inbari

What the Palestinians really envisage after September is to exploit a UN endorsement of statehood to legitimize an escalation of the conflict. After having the 1967 lines recognized so as to negate the results of the Six-Day War, they plan to seek recognition of the 1947 partition lines.

There are signs that the long period of quiet since the Second Intifada is going to end after September or just before it, and that Abbas' Fatah organization is already preparing for the "Third Intifada." Ahmad Abu Ruteima, a Hamas activist in Gaza, describes the objective of the Third Intifada: "The struggle is about the very existence of Israel and not about the 1967 borders. The defense minister, Ehud Barak, confirmed that the [Israeli] army is incapable of confronting a human influx from all directions."

The post-September scenarios discussed in the upper Fatah echelons involve a return to the struggle. A senior member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, Hatem Abd al-Qader, noted that in case Israel obstructs the Palestinians' political plans, Abbas will step down, the PA will dissolve itself, and nothing will prevent the Palestinians from returning to the struggle. And even if elections are held, the new president will come from the younger generation, abolish the Oslo agreements, and lead the Palestinians back to the struggle.

Why does the PLO so adamantly refuse any discussion of swaps between the Palestinian-populated areas in the Israeli Triangle region and the settlement blocs. The PLO, apparently, wants to leave the Palestinian-populated areas in Israel as an anchor for pushing Israel back to the 1947 borders or even further, as the territorial basis for exercising the right of return into Israel.

New York Times article, Abbas was straightforward: "Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice."

Pinhas Inbari is a senior policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is also a veteran Palestinian affairs correspondent who formerly reported for Israel Radio and Al Hamishmar newspaper, and currently reports for several foreign media outlets. He is the author of a number of books on the Palestinians including The Palestinians: Between Terrorism and Statehood.

What if....?

This analysis from Michael Cohen is particularly useful

I would suggest keeping a copy handy and sharing it with anyone who will listen to reason.

The very first thing that has to be said about this issue is concerning the myth of a Palestinian nation – it is simply that – a myth.

The second thing to say about it is the myth of Palestinian rights to a land – this too is a myth. 

History is not the most Politically Correct of the sciences, but that does not mean that History should be re-written to make it palatable to the liberal agenda. The historical facts are legion – and none of them point in the direction of a legitimate claim of a “Palestinian People” to a “Land of Palestine”, nevertheless the international perception is that this claim is legitimate.

Even if it were, and believe me when I say that I believe in the universal claim of all people to human rights, even if there ever was a legitimate claim to “Palestine” by the “Palestinians”, then history shows that that claim was fully answered in 1922, when Winston Churchill gave 73% of British Mandated Palestine to the Islamic world, to become the newly created Kingdom of Jordan – note that there had never been such a kingdom before, there is not a Jordanian nationality, a Jordanian language or a Jordanian heritage; this kingdom was to be a Kingdom for the Islamic inhabitants of British Mandated Palestine, east of the River Jordan, releasing the territory to the west of the Jordan for the Jewish people.

That this compromise was never fully accepted by the Islamic world is a tragedy of history, and today in the Middle East, the heritage we have of Britain’s ambiguous relationship with British Mandated Palestine is that Jordan is not enough for the Islamic world – they will not rest until every last Jew is banished from the region. Jordan has NEVER allowed Jews to live within her borders, and Abu Mazen has said the same would apply to any Palestinian State established within Israel’s current borders.

Please note that -

the PA refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist; the right which was ratified by the United Nations in passing Resolution 181 in 1947

the PA refuses to recognise Israel as a Jewish State; this was how UN Resolution 181, passed in 1947, was worded.

The PA has consistently failed to comply with any of the requirements of each and every ‘Agreement’ signed with Israel – from Oslo 1 (September 1993), Oslo 2 (September 1995), the Hebron Accords (January 1997), the Wye Plantation Accords (October 1998) and the frequent attempts to revisit them all.

The PA refuses to educate its children in the ways of peace and co-existence.

In September 2011, The PA will demonstrate to the world that she refuses to accept any room for a negotiated peace agreement, by calling on the United Nations to recognise a unilaterally declared Palestinian State within the 1967 lines.

Before any discussion can be opened up on this suggestion – it is VITAL to understand that it means a return to a state of war for the entire region. 

Why? Because the 1967 lines were NOT international borders – they were all “CEASE-FIRE” LINES, also called ARMISTICE LINES, which were agreed by the international community after the 1947-1949 Israel War of Independence, which Israel was forced to fight against her Islamic neighbours, because they all refused to accept the United Nations decision under Resolution 181 to establish the Jewish State in British Mandated Palestine.

So what are the problems that will arise in the unilateral decision to declare Palestinian Statehood? There are several aspects

If the PA will not allow Jewish people to live in their “state” what does this mean for the more than 300,000 Jewish people who live there right now! This will not be the same kind of situation that faced those who were expelled from Gaza in 2005 – they were expelled by their own government; no, those of us living within what the PA claims is their state, will be thrown out, in the same way as more than 800,000 Jews were thrown out of these 15 Islamic countries in 1947/8 – Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

If the PA will not recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, in total defiance of the United Nations, what pressure should be put on Israel to recognise Palestine as an Islamic State unilaterally declared within her own borders?

If the PA does not even accept the requirements of the agreements it has already signed up to, what likelihood is there that an illegally established Palestinian State will observe international law?

If the PA cannot even agree among themselves – with the internecine battles that rage between Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the PLO, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade etc, how can we expect them all to agree with Hezbollah, Al Qaida and Iran, not to mention the UN, the EU and the USA?

If the PA continues to be totally unaccountable to the USA, the UN the EU, THE World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund for the billions of zillions of $’s that have been poured into the territories they claim to govern, how can we expect them to be responsible members of the international community?

When the PA becomes a state, it will mean that the ease of passage for the Palestinians into Israel for work will cease – making the PA economy even more dependent on overseas aid – it will mean that in order to come into Israel these people will need visas, a vast step up in bureaucracy from the current situation

When the PA becomes a state, Israel will no longer be under any (even self-imposed) obligation to donate the tens of thousands of tonnes of food, building materials, medical equipment and other aid that crosses into Gaza EVERY WEEK; nor will she be obligated to provide gas, electricity and water, as she does now.

 Will it be a ‘Good Thing’ if the Palestinian State is declared in September? Will it contribute towards economic stability for the Middle East; will it mean that the UN can finally get on with the real task it was given in its charter, of establishing a peace-loving community of nations?

Most likely – NO! NOT AT ALL! Not for the Jewish or Christian Israelis or for the Muslims either in Israel or Palestine. A recent (May 2011) poll among Islamic residents of East Jerusalem showed that 35% would prefer to have Israeli citizenship than Palestinian, and that 40% would move their homes into Israel if the PA annexed East Jerusalem.

Final thought

The God of Israel is not powerless to thwart the aspirations of the Nations *but he may allow them to act. But their actions will not be without consequences! Consider Disasters and what happened to Britain.

What do you think would be the outcome; if the nations mentioned above get their way?

* Try a concordance search on "Nations" to get God's perspective. Ponder this - United Nations.

 

Updated 05/01/15

Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page