Palestinian Quest for Statehood and UN Resolution 377 Part 3
Copyright 1994 - 2018 Bill's Bible Basics

Authored By  :
Bill Kochman


Will the Palestinian Authority rely upon UN Resolution 377 -- also known as the "Uniting for Peace" resolution -- to achieve Palestinian statehood at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September of this year?

Published On :
April 9, 2011


Last Updated :
April 9, 2011


Will Ismail Haneya Give Mahmoud Abbas A Final Opportunity?, Barack Obama Needs To Resist Israel And Support Palestine, Jews Aren't Sincere About Attaining Peace With Palestinians, A No Longer Acceptable Status Quo, Israeli Procrastination, Two-State Solution - A Homeland For Jews And Palestinians, Jesus' Prophecy Regarding God's Coming Wrath Against Jews, Temporary Solution, Both Sides Guilty of Blood And Violence, Peacemakers Or Warmongers, A Logical Pragmatic Humanitarian Solution, No Room For A Potential Palestinian About-Face, Stability Civility And Peaceful Coexistence, Ottoman Empire And Division Of Middle East By United Nations And European Powers, A Boiling Pot Waiting To Explode, An Unjust Solution, Follow Peaceful, Legal, Globally-Respected Path To Statehood, United Nations, New World Order, One World Government, Beast, Does United Nations Represent Mob Rule Or Rule By Minority?, Limited Powers Of United Nations General Assembly, Inherent Power Of UN Security Council Is Guaranteed By The UN Charter, Chapter XVIII Articles 108 And 109, Great Power Unanimity, Resolution 377 vs Security Council, God's Will Shall Prevail




While I honestly don't know what is going on between Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haneya at this current time, the impression I get is that perhaps Haneya is willing to give Abbas a final chance to prove that his approach -- that is, navigating the diplomatic channels of the world and the United Nations -- is the right way to achieve their objectives. If Mahmoud Abbas fails this time, my sense is that not only will he probably abandon any further attempts at arriving at peace with the Israelis, but Ismail Haneya will become even more convinced that his way is the right way, and that violent warfare is the only means to achieve Palestinian objectives.

So I think that there's an awful lot hanging in the balances right now, and Israel and the United States really need to take note of it before they decide to do anything to impede Palestinian aspirations this coming September. Obama simply needs to put Israel in its place, and stop letting Netanyahu manipulate him. He needs to stop being an Israeli stooge like so many previous American presidents, and support Palestinian statehood; because the alternative -- a violent intifada in which many more Israeli and Palestinian lives will be lost -- is not very nice.

Because of their belligerent actions -- particularly their ongoing expansion of Jewish settlements and enclaves in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank, even contrary to the wishes and the counsel of the USA -- I am also convinced that the Israelis are not truly desirous of attaining peace with the Palestinians, or sincere about working with them to establish a Palestinian State. Anyone who has been a regular observer of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past few decades, will realize that whenever both parties are getting close to discussing a final status agreement, something suddenly goes wrong; and quite often, it is Israel which throws a monkey wrench into the works. I can only assume that it is because they really don't want peace, and simply want to maintain the status quo, a status quo that the rest of the world no longer views or accepts as being valid or fair.

In observing the Israelis' track record during the past few decades, I have become convinced that they have been playing a long-term game of procrastination, and that their intentions are to continue to occupy Palestinian territory, to keep the Palestinians divided against each other, and to manipulate the Palestinians through economic means, through military means, and through whatever other means they deem necessary, in order to safeguard their own national identity and security. If what I have just stated is not true, then let them prove it to the world by their actions, by tearing down the wall, by removing all illegal settlements and enclaves from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, by withdrawing all Israeli military personnel from Palestinian territory, by lifting all economic embargos against the Palestinians, and finally, by signing an agreement with the Palestinians that is based upon the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State. Do this, and the world will be convinced that they truly want peace.

Some of you reading this will no doubt assume from my previous remarks that I am standing behind the Palestinians and giving them my full support. I assure you that this is not the case whatsoever. Yes, I am of the opinion that just as the Jews of the Diaspora were given a homeland over sixty years ago, if we are to see any degree of peace in the Middle East, then it seems only logical and necessary that the Palestinians must be given their own homeland as well. Let me also remind you that the land which was given to the Jews over sixty years ago, was in fact occupied by the Arabs and Palestinians at the time, who had eventually taken it over following the earlier Roman occupation, which itself was a judgment from the Lord against the unbelieving Jews of that era. As Jesus Himself prophesied:

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
Luke 21:20-24, KJV


You will find this topic discussed more at length in some of my other articles.

While I support a two-state solution to the current conflict, because it is obviously impossible for these two peoples to live side-by-side in peace in the same country -- currently, Israeli Arabs do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as Jews in Israel -- based upon my current understanding of the Scriptures, I'm not certain that such an arrangement will last indefinitely. It will falter sooner or later; but again, this is a topic that I discuss in other articles where I delve into issues related to the Endtime.

While I believe that the Palestinians need to obtain their own homeland in order to resolve their long-standing conflict with the Israelis, this is not to say that I am in agreement with all of the methods that they have employed in order to reach that objective. As I point out in other articles, I am of the opinion that there is plenty of blood, and a lot of guilt, on both sides of the fence, Israeli and Palestinian. As a follower of the peaceful doctrines of Jesus Christ, I am totally opposed to violence, bloodshed and war of every kind, and for every reason. As Jesus clearly taught us, blessed are the peacemakers, and not the warmongers, as we see here:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9, KJV


"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Matthew 26:52, KJV


"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
John 18:36, KJV


As I amply explained in part two, from a purely religious perspective, I do not agree with the beliefs of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. I believe that they are both seriously misguided, deceived, and in fact quite antichrist, because they both reject Jesus Christ as being the Son of God who died for the sins of the entire world, who was raised from the dead on the Third Day, and who now sits at the Right Hand of the Father. So again, they are both antichrists, and they will both pay for their sins of rebellion and lack of belief, unless they repent. In short, I support neither the politics, nor the tactics, or the religions of the Israelis and the Palestinians. I am discussing this issue purely from a logical, pragmatic, humanitarian point-of-view, as a means of obtaining at least a temporary solution between the two parties.

Let me also clarify, lest someone get the wrong impression, that in making my previous comments regarding the leadership of Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority striving to work together towards a common goal, I'm not suggesting that the Palestinians should play Mister Nice Guy during the next six months until they have finally achieved their national aspirations -- that is, Palestinian statehood -- and then suddenly show their other side again by engaging in violence against Israel. Such an about-face would no doubt shock the entire world, and would quickly undo everything that's been accomplished. Once Palestine is established, the Palestinians must live by their legal commitments and obligations to the United Nations, which I fully expect they intend to do.

Once the Palestinians' demands have been met at the United Nations, there should no longer be any further motivation for violence against Israel. As I said, it would in fact be quite self-defeating at that point to engage in such violent behavior. What more could they hope to gain from it? No, I'm not saying that both parties should simply kiss and make up and forget their violent past. Such an expectation would be unrealistic considering the harsh feelings that have existed between them, not to mention the many lives which have been lost over the years; but they can at least learn to live with a degree of civility along side each other in peace for the sake of maintaining stability in the region, and because it is simply the right and decent thing to do. As Paul wrote to the Christians of the First Century:

"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
Romans 12:17-19, KJV


So again, once a Palestinian State is established, peaceful coexistence should be the order of the day.

While I have pointed the finger at the Palestinians due to their propensity for waging acts of violence against Israeli citizens who may in no way be responsible for the injustices that are being committed by the Israeli government, as well at the Israelis themselves due to their continued obstinacy and their disproportionate retaliatory violence against the Palestinians, it is also only fair to mention the complicity that the European powers -- particularly the British and the French -- as well as the United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations, have in the current situation.

The current political problems, ethnic divisions, etc., which plague the Middle East are to some degree a result of actions that these powers took during the first half of the Twentieth Century, when they chose to carve up the lands of the Middle East, based upon their own national interests, following the fracturing of the Ottoman Empire. At that time, as they drew up national boundaries and forced together certain religious and ethnic groups which weren't compatible with each other, they must have known that it was a recipe for disaster, and that someday, the boiling pot would explode.

Thus, today we are witnessing the results of their decisions as problems erupt that involve the Kurds, the Armenians, the Sunnis, the Shi'ites, the Palestinians, the Israelis, etc. Ridding Europe of the Jews may have seemed like a smart move at the time -- not that they were completely expelled from the European continent -- but offering them their own state at the expense of the resident Palestinians was neither fair nor just. Then, of course, too, we must not forget that the Palestinians could have had a lot more by now, if instead of choosing to go to war over sixty years ago, they had accepted the deal that was offered to them at the time.

So to reiterate a point that I made earlier, the Palestinians need to remain focused on one thing, and that is a peaceful, legal, globally-respected path to acquiring statehood. That path is obviously United Nations recognition. They must not allow anything that Israel may attempt to do from now until September to deter them from that track. Furthermore, it is imperative that they keep their own people under control, and not give Israel another reason to attack them, or the United Nations any reason to doubt their readiness to be accepted into the world body of nations.

Before concluding this series, allow me to make a few more comments regarding the United Nations, and how it seems to be perceived by certain individuals. As some of you will know, I have dedicated a fair amount of space in some of my articles to the discussion of an oppressive, intrusive New World Order or One World Government, as it is also known. Occasionally, I have mentioned the United Nations, although usually not in any great detail. If you are a regular web surfer, then you will obviously already know that there appears to be quite a few online Christian writers who are convinced that the United Nations represents the Biblical Beast of the Endtime, or at the very least, a precursor to the same. Personally, I am not fully convinced of this point, although I have considered it.

During the course of reading online news items or conducting research for my articles, I sometimes encounter comments in which an individual will criticize the United Nations, and equate it with mob rule. More often than not, these kinds of criticisms seem to originate with Americans. I have even read comments where someone will say something like "The president should be able to do whatever he thinks is right. We are a sovereign, free nation, so why do we need to receive approval from the United Nations? Why should we need the permission of other countries?". In particular, members of the John Birch Society and other patriot groups are known for holding this particular negative view of the United Nations.

While I can certainly understand the degree of mistrust that some people have towards the United Nations, ironically, the perception that some Americans have of the UN -- that is, that it amounts to mob rule -- is the exact opposite of the truth, as far as I can tell. As we saw earlier, and contrary to what some people seem to think, because of the way that the United Nations Charter is written, the UN General Assembly -- which represents the majority of nations in the world -- is actually quite limited in its decision-making ability, as well as its ability to actually effectuate its resolutions. Unless UNGA resolutions have been approved by the UN Security Council, as we've already seen, they are symbolic gestures at best. This is particularly true when they deal with international peace and security, and other substantive matters.

You will recall that I stated that the UN Security Council is comprised of five permanent members -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States -- as well as ten non-permanent members which are elected by the United Nations General Assembly for two-year terms. Furthermore, the five permanent members are the only ones which possess the power of the veto. If any one of them does not like a resolution which has been put forth by the UN General Assembly, it can simply veto that resolution, and it is dead in the water. So contrary to what some American patriots seem to think, what we have here is most certainly not mob rule by the nations of the world, it is in fact a small, powerful monopoly comprised of only five nations; and the United States just so happens to be one of them. Furthermore, all five permanent members are nuclear powers.

Thus we see that the notion of referring to United Nations General Assembly votes as mob rule is quite ludicrous. Even using the word "mob" is inappropriate, because it is used to designate a crowd of people who are disorderly, and who are intent on causing trouble or violence of some kind. The UN General Assembly is anything but that. It is a large group of international leaders who gather in an orderly fashion in order to discuss different aspects of International Law. It is bound by the chapters, articles and clauses of the United Nations Charter. It follows the rule of law. It does not practice anarchy.

When some people -- such as American patriots -- accuse the United Nations General Assembly of mob rule, it seems to me that what they're really saying is that they are angry just because America didn't get its way; and sadly, this is such a typical American attitude. Look at it this way. If your family decides to take a vote regarding some issue, and your view doesn't gain support, are you going to turn around and accuse your family of mob rule? The very same principle can be applied to a school board, a city council, or the United States Congress. Just because one side doesn't get its way does not mean that the other side is guilty of mob rule. As they say, you win some, and you lose some.

To reiterate, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council control and regulate all of the substantive decisions -- meaning approved resolutions -- that are made by the other almost two hundred nations in the UN General Assembly. This clearly represents a powerful monopoly of which the United States is a part. Furthermore, as I mentioned in part one, in recent years, the United States has relied more upon the use of its power of the veto than any other member country of the United Nations. This is historical fact, and not fiction.

Surprisingly, that is not the end of this matter either. You will recall that in part one, I stated that because the UN Security Council -- and in particular, the five permanent members -- have been assigned so much power, it has often caused friction between the Security Council and the General Assembly. As a result, during the course of its existence, there have been calls for reform of the United Nations for a variety of reasons. So perhaps you are wondering why the UN General Assembly doesn't simply amend the UN Charter so that it is more to their benefit. Well, the crafty architects of the Charter apparently considered that possibility as well. Consider the following:

The United Nations Charter was structured in such a way that it would protect the national interests of the five permanent members. There are certain legal mechanisms built into the Charter which make it virtually impossible for other nations of the world to break the permanent members' hold on power in the UN. The manner in which this has been accomplished is by means of Chapter XVIII, which deals with amendments to the UN Charter. More specifically, as you can see below, Article 108 and Article 109 of the UN Charter grant the permanent members -- or P5 as they are also known -- the power of the veto over any potential amendments to the Charter itself:

----- Begin Quote -----

Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

Article 109

1. A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference.

2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including the permanent members of the Security Council.

3. If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council.

----- End Quote -----

Please notice carefully that we are told that there are two primary conditions which must be met in order for amendments to the UN Charter to come into force. First, according to Article 108, they must be "adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly"; and second, they must be "ratified . . . by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council". Clause 2 of Article 109 likewise states that "Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified . . . by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including the permanent members of the Security Council".

In other words, if some member nations of the United Nations General Assembly want to make some fundamental change to the Charter which would grant them more power in some way, while at the same time, possibly weakening the position of the five permanent members, they simply cannot do it, because one or more of the P5 would probably veto it, because they obviously are not going to allow anything which works against their own national interests. Chapter XVIII very clearly says that "all the permanent members of the Security Council" must agree; so here again we clearly see an example of the rule of "great power unanimity" coming into effect, which we discussed in part one.

Again, this amounts to rule by a powerful minority -- five nations -- and not mob rule by the majority as some people seem to think. The fact that certain Americans dis the United Nations structure demonstrates that they simply do not fully understand how it works, nor seem to fathom that it's actually working in their favor. As we have clearly seen, America has more power within the United Nations than most other nations of the world, so what's the beef?

Let me emphasize again that "great power unanimity" and the power of the veto primarily apply to what are referred to as substantive resolutions, and not to procedural resolutions. Obviously, amending the United Nations Charter would clearly be recognized as a substantive resolution, as would admitting a new state to the United Nations. Thus again we see that the Palestinians may have some major hurdles to jump over in the near future. Depending on how one interprets Resolution 377, garnering a two thirds majority vote of the General Assembly may not be sufficient. It's quite possible that the acid test will come with the UN Security Council, and which way they each determine to vote.

As I mentioned earlier, a lot can happen between now and next September when the 66th Session of the United Nations General Assembly convenes. Without a doubt there will be unseen forces at work, trying to control and manipulate the outcome of this crucial vote for the Palestinians. However, regardless of what eventually happens, when all is said and done, I remain firmly convinced that God is in control of this situation, and that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians will play out exactly as He wants it to, according to His Divine Purposes and Will. As His Word tells us:

"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past."
Ecclesiastes 3:14-15, KJV


"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
Isaiah 46:9-10, KJV


"Lift not up your horn on high: speak not with a stiff neck. For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another."
Psalms 75:5-7, KJV


"Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:"
Daniel 2:20-21, KJV


"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."
Daniel 4:17, KJV


"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
Proverbs 21:1, KJV


With these verses I will bring another series to a close. I trust that you have found it both informative and instructive.


BBB Tools And Services


Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.