Efforts will be made later this week to change the status of the territories under control of the Palestinian Authority. This has already led to some interesting exchanges. Hopes that the UN will formally recognise a new Palestinian state will be dashed if the US and UK use their Security Council veto.
The Palestinian Authority will go to the United Nations and request UN membership and international recognition of an independent state of Palestine based on the 1967 cease fire lines which many in Israel believe are indefensible in their present form.
The United States of America have announced that they will use their veto against any motion of this kind at the Security Council, meaning that the PA will most likely then turn to the General Assembly to ask for its status to be upgraded from ‘UN Observer’ to a ‘Non-Member State.’ This will require a two-thirds majority to pass but it is felt that there is a strong possibility that this will be achieved.
Nothing will change on the ground and this is a symbolic measure designed to isolate Israel. However there is a risk that it will raise unrealistic expectations that could lead to increased levels of violence at the expense of both peoples.
Eventually there will be some form of Palestinian state. Israel and other parties are committed to a "two state solution" with security for both states within mutually agreed and respected borders.
However the recognition of a Palestinian state at this time in a non-starter.
Firstly which Palestine is to be recognised? The government based on Judea and Samaria or the one based in Gaza? It would be foolish to recognise a state which clearly does not have authority over its claimed national territory. Especially as the state based in Gaza makes it quite clear that it supports the elimination of Israel and the extermination of its people.
Secondly, there needs to be a clear definition of the borders of the new state. The current lines are little more than cease fire lines and have never reflected the reality on the ground. There is still a great deal of talking to do, part of which must be a resolution of the dispute over Jerusalem - claimed by both the Israelis and the Palestinians, the securing of access between Gaza and the West Bank, and the protection of the Jewish population in the area of the Palestinian Authority.
Thirdly, the declaration of a Palestinian state will be a violation of previous UN resolutions and the Oslo accord which prohibit unilateral action by either party.
Negotiations between Israel and Palestine should restart in earnest. Attacks against Israel itself and Jews settled in Samaria and Judea should be stopped by the Palestinians themselves. Areas of agreement should be identified at an early stage, with the more complex issues explored in depth. The Oslo accord, which I personally had the opportunity in seeing in great detail when speaking with both Israeli and Palestinian politicians in the 1990s show that progress can be made.
It is time for negotiations not megaphones.
I do hope that our own church leadership tread with extreme care if asked to comment on this issue. As a denomination we have focused solely on "the occupation" and there is no mandate from conference to support the establishment of a Palestinian state at this time. Any statement about this week's events will be a purely personal expression of opinion and should only be issued in the name of the President or Secretary of Conference.
The Palestinian Authority will go to the United Nations and request UN membership and international recognition of an independent state of Palestine based on the 1967 cease fire lines which many in Israel believe are indefensible in their present form.
The United States of America have announced that they will use their veto against any motion of this kind at the Security Council, meaning that the PA will most likely then turn to the General Assembly to ask for its status to be upgraded from ‘UN Observer’ to a ‘Non-Member State.’ This will require a two-thirds majority to pass but it is felt that there is a strong possibility that this will be achieved.
Nothing will change on the ground and this is a symbolic measure designed to isolate Israel. However there is a risk that it will raise unrealistic expectations that could lead to increased levels of violence at the expense of both peoples.
Eventually there will be some form of Palestinian state. Israel and other parties are committed to a "two state solution" with security for both states within mutually agreed and respected borders.
However the recognition of a Palestinian state at this time in a non-starter.
Firstly which Palestine is to be recognised? The government based on Judea and Samaria or the one based in Gaza? It would be foolish to recognise a state which clearly does not have authority over its claimed national territory. Especially as the state based in Gaza makes it quite clear that it supports the elimination of Israel and the extermination of its people.
Secondly, there needs to be a clear definition of the borders of the new state. The current lines are little more than cease fire lines and have never reflected the reality on the ground. There is still a great deal of talking to do, part of which must be a resolution of the dispute over Jerusalem - claimed by both the Israelis and the Palestinians, the securing of access between Gaza and the West Bank, and the protection of the Jewish population in the area of the Palestinian Authority.
Thirdly, the declaration of a Palestinian state will be a violation of previous UN resolutions and the Oslo accord which prohibit unilateral action by either party.
Negotiations between Israel and Palestine should restart in earnest. Attacks against Israel itself and Jews settled in Samaria and Judea should be stopped by the Palestinians themselves. Areas of agreement should be identified at an early stage, with the more complex issues explored in depth. The Oslo accord, which I personally had the opportunity in seeing in great detail when speaking with both Israeli and Palestinian politicians in the 1990s show that progress can be made.
It is time for negotiations not megaphones.
I do hope that our own church leadership tread with extreme care if asked to comment on this issue. As a denomination we have focused solely on "the occupation" and there is no mandate from conference to support the establishment of a Palestinian state at this time. Any statement about this week's events will be a purely personal expression of opinion and should only be issued in the name of the President or Secretary of Conference.
