A UN Resolution Setting The Parameters For A Palestinian State Is Still In Play
by Michael Snyder
Because nothing happened in the days immediately following the start of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly on September 15th, most people seem to think that we are not going to see a UN resolution formally recognizing a Palestinian state any time soon.
But according to the Jerusalem Post, such a resolution is still very much in play. France is still very much interested in introducing such a resolution, but they are not going to do it unless they have the support of the United States. In other words, the fate of a UN resolution setting the parameters for a Palestinian state is in the hands of Barack Obama.
For years, most observers have believed that a Palestinian state would only come into existence through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But negotiations have totally broken down and there does not seem to be any hope that they will resume any time soon.
In a desperate attempt to move the peace process forward, France wants to introduce a new Security Council resolution that would formally recognize a Palestinian state once and for all and set the framework for what a final peace deal would look like. The following comes from a Jerusalem Post article that was published on September 26th…
The idea behind the French move for a new Security Council resolution is to set internationally agreed parameters for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The aim would be to reassure the Palestinians on what a final peace deal might look like and put international pressure on Israel to participate in serious and focused negotiations.
A UN resolution of this kind would bypass the need for consensus between the parties on terms of reference for final peace talks, which is precisely where the American- mediated peace effort broke down in early 2014.
But as I mentioned above, France will not introduce such a resolution unless it is already a done deal.
And the key to it being a done deal is to get the support of the Obama administration. Here is more from the Jerusalem Post…
The French have not yet finally decided on whether to go the Security Council route.
It will depend on the degree of international support, especially American, they have.
Even though 136 nations already recognize a Palestinian state, the U.S. government has always stood in the way of a UN Security Council resolution. But now that there seems to be little hope of peace talks resuming, Barack Obama is indicating that he may not stand in the way this time around. The following excerpt comes from a Los Angeles Times article…
“President Obama took a step toward a tougher line with Israel in an interview released Tuesday, raising the possibility that the U.S. will allow a United Nations vote on issues related to the Palestinians if the two sides make no meaningful movement toward peace.
In an interview with an Israeli television station, Obama noted that his administration has “up until this point” quashed such efforts at the U.N. while insisting that the Israelis and Palestinians must negotiate a resolution. But he said it is a challenge for the U.S. to keep demanding that the Palestinians negotiate in good faith if no one believes the Israelis are doing the same.
“How do we move off what appears right now to be a hopeless situation and move it back towards a hopeful situation?” Obama asked in the interview. “That will require more than just words. That will require some actions. And that’s going to be hard work, though, because right now I think there’s not a lot of confidence in the process.”
So if France does introduce such a resolution, what should we expect it to look like?
Well, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that it would likely look very much like the November 1947 UN General Assembly partition plan…
But if they do, the proposed resolution will likely refer to the November 1947 UN General Assembly partition plan, which called for the establishment of two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and which was jubilantly hailed by the Israeli state-in-the-making at the time. It will also seek to replace the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for land for peace without going into details as the preeminent international document on peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians.
The proposed resolution will call for two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace; Jerusalem as the capital of both; borders along the 1967 lines with land swaps; and a satisfactory security package for Israel.
Obviously, surrendering any sovereignty over Jerusalem is something that the Netanyahu government will never, ever agree to.
So if the UN does adopt such a resolution, it will just raise tensions in the region. The Palestinians will feel legally entitled to east Jerusalem, and Israel will insist that it never agreed to give it up.
In the end, such a situation would inevitably result in war.
Personally, I believe that Barack Obama very much wants to see the establishment of a Palestinian state by the time he leaves office, and I also believe that we will definitely see a Palestinian state recognized by the UN at some point.
But I don’t believe that the “peace” that our global leaders are hoping for will last very long. In fact, I believe that an unprecedented war is coming to the Middle East.
If Barack Obama decides to go along with the UN resolution that France is pushing, I am convinced that the consequences for us will be absolutely disastrous as well. Trying to divide the land of Israel is one of the most foolish foreign policy decisions that we could possibly make.
So let us hope that the decision to formally recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations is put off for as long as possible.
In the end it will all come down to the attempt to divide Jerusalem. We see this in Daniel 9:24, were the prophet is told it’s all about his people and his holy city. I also think Solomon’s offer to divide the child is a prophetic image of what will happen…
1 Kings 3:16-28
Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. One of them said, “Pardon me, my lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.
“During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”
The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”
But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.
The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’ ”
Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”
The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”
But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”
Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”
When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.
I think it possible the Antichrist will come with a solution to Israel’s reluctance to divide Jerusalem. Possibly making it an international city, governed by the Vatican.