Haaretz is reporting that in "an unusually fast" move, the UN Security Council will take up the Palestinian proposal to become a full member as a sovereign nation on Monday. It was only on Friday that Palestinian Authority representative Abbas submitted his proposal. All proposals must first go to the Security Council and attain a majority vote, without any vetoes from the 5 permanent members, in order to go forward to the General Assembly. The US is one of the five permanent members having that coveted veto, proposal killing power. The US has said they will veto the proposal. Personally, what the US says and what the US does are two different things. I will believe it only after I see it happen.
Haaretz reports, "The UN Security Council will take up the Palestinian bid for full statehood and UN membership on Monday. This is an unusually fast development compared to the normal tempo of the United Nations. Council president Nawaf Salam of Lebanon told reporters on Friday that the 15-member council would begin discussions at 1900 GMT Monday to take up the application submitted earlier Friday by Abbas to the UN Secretary General. Ban passed the document hours later to the council, whose approval is needed for UN membership and full recognition of statehood." I believe that 1900 Greenwich Mean Time is 2pm Eastern Standard Time. Although the Russian representative said it will be at 3:00.
The interesting thing about the proposal, aside from the global seizure we are currently having regarding the intractable Palestinian push to destroy Israel, is that the world's attention is now on that routine and arcane administrative body that until now, no one really seemed to care about.
But at the moment, all eyes are on not only the body, but are questioning its function. Security Council reform is on the UN's agenda this session. Everyone is saying things like, 'with the majority of the world wanting the Palestinians to get their state, why should the US be the only one to hold up progress?' I am not making that up. Time Magazine's queries are representative:
"U.N. Security Council: Is It Time to Veto the Veto?"
The U.S. veto, wielded in opposition to a generally-held international consensus, is then perhaps the most unilateral gesture one can make at the world's most multilateral institution. Why in the 21st century should anybody still have the right to do this? the Security Council with its five veto-wielding permanent members — is a reflection of a long-lapsed status quo. It's possibly the most glaring anachronism in international affairs."
Really, Time? You're just starting to ask these questions now, at the moment the world is teetering on the edge of the most prophetic and dastardly actions ever? The article continues-
"Do the U.K. and France—shorn of their empires, great armies and mired in debt-ridden Europe—really both deserve vetoes? If Russia is a permanent member now, why isn't India, with its far larger population and more dynamic economy? And what about Japan and Germany, two of the world's most important economies, still kept at arm's length in this forum because of their being on the losing side of a war fought some seven decades ago. There's no shortage of nits to pick."
Russia says they plan to vote yes on Monday. Of course. In the not-too-distant future, they will attack Israel and try to obliterate her (Ez 38:2-3). The other four permanent, veto-wielding members are China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. China is being cagey as to their vote, but they said in August, "Wu announced in Cairo that China would "support" the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital - while cannily omitting the detail as to whether China would actually vote for the statehood measure in the Security Council." The UK is hesitant. "Britain continued to hesitate yesterday in the face of increasingly frantic scenes at the UN, where delegates are preparing for the climax of the Palestinian statehood bid." But the same article says that "The US is reluctant to veto the motion, fearing a violent reaction in the Arab world."
The Sri Lanka Sunday Times says ominously that "World peace is at stake".
"The European nations, especially France and Britain are divided between their alliance with the US and the justification for Palestine's recognition." A rock and a hard place, for sure.
The upshot is put succinctly by this AP story carried in the Kansas City Star:
"The Palestinians would need nine of the 15 Security Council votes to accept their bid, and forecasts are difficult because member states have little to gain from making their intentions clear this early." So we don't know. But we won't have long to wait to find out.
The scenarios stemming from actions this week are endless. I can't even fathom how things might turn out. Maybe the US does not veto and the Palestinians attain their goal. Maybe the US does, and the Palestinians use that action as a justification of our being a tyrant standing in the way of their legitimacy as a people, and bomb us. The Security Council's reform is on the session's agenda, maybe the US veto gives them the impetus to change things and the Palestinians get their state after a while. Maybe Israel decides she has had enough and begins a military action that fulfills the Psalm 83 battle. Maybe nothing will happen. But at some point, something will, and soon I believe. Like before the year is out.
"According to one Palestinian-based poll, 70.5% of Palestinians expect a third intifada (uprising) to begin this autumn if the deadlock in negotiations is not broken."
So now we have another date to look toward in the Lord's progressing plan to ultimately bring an end to sinful humanity: Monday afternoon. These dates are getting shorter and shorter as we hurtle toward each of our individual ultimate fates.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment