Why Do the Palestinians Not Have a State of Their Own? - By Matt Ward - http://www.raptureready.com/2017/05/09/why-do-the-palestinians-not-have-a-state-of-their-own/
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Minister of Propaganda)
On Monday, May 15, the day after Jewish Independence Day, the Muslim world will commemorate a day known as Nakba Day, or "Catastrophe" Day. Nakba Day commemorates the "catastrophe" that the establishment of the State of Israel was to the Muslim world in 1948.
In 1988, Palestinian Authority President, Yasser Arafat decided that whilst the Jewish State was celebrating its Independence with joy and gladness on May 14, the Palestinian people the next day should also mark the occasion formally and solemnly. They therefore began the commemoration of their own anniversary, the Nakba. To this end he declared May 15th, the day after Israeli independence in 1948, as Nakba Day.
Nakba Day has been commemorated and noted ever since by the Palestinians, and increasingly by the wider world. Some years pass more peacefully than others, some years see an explosion of extreme violence. But with each passing year, the demand for the establishment of a Palestinian state grows and grows. It is a pressure that, I believe, will be pivotal in Israel finally sealing an agreement God describes as "a covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell" itself (Isaiah 28:18).
But why is it that the Palestinians do not have their own state? It is a genuine question. The truth, unknown by most, is that the Palestinians should have their own state by now. In 2017, the Palestinians should have their own fully functional, autonomous state. Yet they don't, and they are nowhere near attaining it.
Why is this? The answer most give is as basic and simple as it is wrong: it is because of Israel. The perception many wrongly have is that Israel prevents the Palestinians from attaining their own statehood. It is inaccurate, it is perverse and it is entirely uninformed.
Yet this lie persists, and grows stronger with each passing year. It is the same old lie often stated by diplomats and politicians alike, and it goes something like this, "...if Israel just allowed the Palestinians to have their own state, there would then finally be peace in the Middle East."
Yet this lie is as subtle in its trickery and deceit as it is dangerous to the state of Israel. If one follows this line of argument through to its logical conclusion then it means that the fault, and all the blame for the lack of a Palestinian state, and consequently for a lack of general and widespread peace in the Middle East, rests exclusively with Israel.
Not with Syria or Bashir al-Assad, not with IS, not with radical Islamism, not with Russia and her blatant expansionist aspirations, not with Saddam Hussein when he was still alive, not with the Muslim Brotherhood, nor with Iran or her proxy Hezbollah, not with Hamas or the Palestinians - but with little Israel. All the historical and current problems in the Middle East can be laid exclusively at the feet of Israel.
It is a lie from the very depths of Hell itself. It is heinous, it is untrue, it is factually incorrect and pushed exclusively by one of two types of people; the ignorant and historically uniformed or by anti-Semites. There is no third category here.
The simple and irrefutable truth is that the Palestinians should have a state of their own right now. Israel have already offered the Palestinians statehood on no fewer than five separate occasions, and on each occasion the Palestinians turned it down.
On the evening before the first Nakba Day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented that "Israel was not responsible for the Palestinian tragedy, their leadership is." He was right. The long and difficult history of the Palestinian quest for statehood, and the failure thereof, can only rightly be blamed on, and apportioned to one group, the corrupt, illegitimate leadership of the Palestinian people.
Facts simply do not lie, nor does the historical record.
The Palestinians have rejected offers for the creation of their own statehood on five distinct occasions. On a number of those occasions Israel even conceded to each and every Palestinian precondition they set for a state. Yet they still refused the deal that would have seen the establishment of their own state and homelands.
History verifies it, past U.S. presidents have attested to it, world leaders know it, yet the masses-including many within the church, are wholly uninformed and unaware of it. So let's take a minute and actually examine the historical record, without comment and without judgment and let it tell us what actually happened.
Opportunity One - 1930s
Beginning in 1918, with the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, Britain took control of most of the Middle East region, including the area we now know as Palestine and Israel. In 1936, the Arabs living under this British mandate rebelled.
As a result of this rebellion, the British formed a task force known as the Peel Commission. Its aim was to understand the causes of this rebellion and seek solutions for the future. The conclusion of the commission was simple. The Peel Commission concluded that two separate people, the Jews and the Arabs, both wanted and were intent upon ruling the same land. The Commission therefore recommended a simple solution; a two state solution.
Two states living side-by-side, one a Jewish state, the other an Arab state. The two state solution is nothing new, it's older than most of our grandparents. The Jews jumped at this chance to establish their own state in the 1930s, even though the land they were being offered was miniscule compared to the offer forwarded to the Arabs. The Arabs were offered 80% of the disputed land, the Jews a mere 20%. The Jews said yes, the Arabs gave a resounding no.
Opportunity Two - 1947
In 1947, the United Nations came to the conclusion that the only way to resolve the ongoing animosity between the Jews and the Arabs was to divide the land formally. The UN therefore voted to formally create two states, living side by side - another two state solution.
Again, the Jews jumped at this opportunity, the Arabs Muslims responded by launching war against Israel, and were joined by Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. They were soundly defeated. Critically, it was at this point that the land set aside for the creation of an Arab state by the United Nations, mainly the West Bank and east Jerusalem, become for the first time occupied territory.
This was not an Israeli occupation though, the land was occupied by Jordan, not Israel.
Opportunity Three - 1967
It was in 1967 that the Arabs, who had just begun referring to themselves as "Palestinians" sought to destroy Israel, alongside Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel soundly defeated all comers and found itself at the conclusion of conflict controlling additional large amounts of territory, all of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, the West Bank and Gaza.
This amazing Israeli victory provoked widespread discussion within Jewish society. Many wanted to give this land back in exchange for peace, many more wanted to give this land to the Arabs, now calling themselves "Palestinians," so that they could fashion and build their own state, in exchange for what Israel hoped would be a lasting peace.
This offer led to the infamous "three no's" of the Arab League, who met in Sudan to discuss Israel's magnanimous offer; "No!" to peace with Israel, "No!" to any recognition of Israel and "No!" to any future negotiations of Israel. The longed for Two State solution was now well and truly dead and would remain so for over thirty years.
Opportunity Four - 2000
In the year 2000 new leaders and new optimism abounded. There was genuine hope from Israel and Western leaders that either peace, or some other form of wider agreement was genuinely within reach. To that end, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David to conclude a new agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
At Camp David, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a deal that had never been on the table before. It was such an offer that US President Bill Clinton, quite understandably, believed there were genuine prospects for a negotiated and permanent settlement between the two peoples. Clinton believed history was beckoning.
Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank and, crucially, east Jerusalem as its capital. Clinton was sure the Palestinians would jump at the chance. But he was wrong. Arafat refused every concession and every offer tabled by Barak. He said no to everything. So intransient was Arafat that afterwards, Clinton went on record as saying that Arafat was, "here fourteen days and said "no" to everything."
The Palestinians responded to Israel's generous offer by launching an intifada against them, and over 1,000 Israelis died as a consequence.
Opportunity Five - 2008
Despite serious misgiving, in 2008 Israel so eager for peace with the Palestinians that they went even further in their offer than they had in 2000. This time, the Jewish State, confirming the terms of the 2000 negotiations were still on the table for the Palestinians (including having east Jerusalem as their capital), also adding the extra promise of "additional lands" as an incentive for the Palestinians to finally say yes.
Mahmoud Abbas, like all of his predecessors, flatly refused all the tabled offers, to the utter amazement of all.
So why is it, in 2017, that the Palestinians still do not have their own state? Is it, as Nakba Day portrays, because the Israelis are oppressing and denying the Palestinian people their rights or the opportunity for their own state, up until this present day? Or could there be a different reason?
The simple truth of the matter is that Israel have offered peace and statehood to the Palestinians on five occasions. On each occasion they have been met with abject rejections and often extreme violence in return.
Looking at the historical record I can only conclude that the Palestinians do not have a state of their own because they do not want one. This opinion seems to be verified by Ismail Haniyah, Hamas' own Prime Minister of Gaza. Haniyah is an outspoken critic of Israel, and of peace with the "illegal Jewish entity." On January 15th, 2014, Prime Minister Haniyah said the following about the Palestinians under his leadership with regards to the peace process,
"This is a generation which knows no fear. It is the generation of the missile, the tunnel and suicide operations."
Later, on March 23 of the same year he said, "Stop negotiating with the enemy. We will not recognize Israel."
The acquisition of a state is not the end game the Palestinians seem to be seeking. The ultimate end game for the Palestinians is not two states, living side by side, but rather a Middle East that exists without Israel in it.
The Palestinians do not have a state for one very simple reason; it is not a state they seek, it is the destruction of Israel. And this is why, short of the arrival of the Messiah Himself, there will never be a genuine or lasting peace in the Middle East.
Do the Jewish people have any right to the land of Israel? Did they steal that land from the Palestinians? Did they create the modern day state of Israel in violation of international law? Is there any hope for real peace in the Middle East between the Jews and the Arabs? And what does the Bible have to say about these questions?
The focus of world politics today is the nation of Israel in the Middle East. And that focus is one of many signs that we are living in the season of the Lord's return, because all of end time Bible prophecy focuses on Israel, just like today's newspaper headlines.
The world condemns Israel for stealing the land of the Palestinians. But, is that true? I can tell you without hesitation that it is not true.
The Bible says that God has given the Jewish people an eternal title to that land. The Bible also says that in the end times God will regather the Jewish people to that land and re-establish their state.
So, the bottom line is that the presence of the state of Israel in the Middle East today is in accordance with God's will.
The Land Title Covenant
The controlling passage for everything I have to share is found in Genesis 12 beginning with verse 1. It reads as follows, "The LORD," (and in your Bibles whenever that is capitalized it always means Yahweh, the name of God) "Yahweh said to Abram, 'Go forth from your country to the land which I will show you. And I will make you a great nation and will bless you, and make your name great. And to your descendants I will give this land.'" The land is Canaan.
This promise was reconfirmed to Abraham six more times. In Genesis 17:7, God declared the promise of the land to be an everlasting covenant, not a temporary one - everlasting! The promise was reconfirmed to Isaac and to Jacob. It was reconfirmed through King David in Psalm 105, which reads as follows:
"Oh, give thanks to Yahweh, for He has remembered His covenant forever. The covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac. And then He confirmed it to Jacob, and to Israel as an everlasting covenant. Saying, 'To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance.'"
The Land Use Covenant
There were actually two covenants related to the land of Israel. The first one, the one we just discussed, is the Land Title Covenant. This was given through Abraham and it was an unconditional covenant. God's saying, "I'm giving you the land with no conditions attached. It's yours. It's yours forever!"
The second was the Land Use Covenant. This was given by God through Moses right before the children of Israel entered the land of Canaan after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Just before they entered the land, God spoke through Moses.
In Deuteronomy 28-30, God gives the Land Use Covenant. This is a covenant in which God makes it very clear to Israel that when they go into the land they are to abide by certain rules. One of the most important rules being not to intermarry with the women of the land, because He said that would lead to idolatry.
There were many rules and regulations God gave the Israelites. He told them that the enjoyment of the land would depend upon their faithfulness to God. If they were faithful, He would give them blessings. If they were unfaithful, He would put curses upon them.
There is a whole chapter concerning the different kinds of curses. Curses included bad weather, losses in wars, domination by foreign governments, rebellion by teenagers, divorce epidemics, crop failures, cattle dying, and on and on. All sorts of curses God would put upon the Israelites if they were unfaithful to Him.
Then Moses warned his people that if they refused to repent, if they continued to sin against God, that it would ultimately lead to the greatest curse of all. Deuteronomy 28:64 reveals the greatest curse would be:
"Yahweh will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. And there you will serve other gods. And among those nations you shall find no rest, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there Yahweh will give you a trembling heart and failing of eyes, and despair of soul."
What would be the ultimate curse? The Jewish dispersion to the four corners of the earth.
So, the crucial point to keep in mind is this: the gift of the land was irrevocable and unconditional. The Jewish people were given an eternal title, but their use and enjoyment of the land was conditional. It depended upon their obedience to God.
Let me illustrate it this way. Let's suppose that you buy a car for your teenage son. You put the car in his name, and it belongs to him. But, you sit down with him and you say, "As long as you live in my house you are going to live under my rules and regulations. The car is yours, but here are the rules. There's going to be no spinning of the tires, no racing, and no speeding." So, you go through all the rules, and then you say to him, "If you violate those rules, depending upon the severity of the violation, I am going to take away your car and I am going to lock it up in the garage and you are not going to be able to drive it for a week, or two weeks, or for a month." The car is his. It belongs to him. But, his use of it depends upon his obedience to his father's commands, which he can lose the use of it for a period of time.
That is the situation with the children of Israel when it comes to owning their land. They were given an eternal title to the land, but their possession of the land was conditional upon their obedience to God.
The Israelites dwelled in the land for 750 years, with 400 years under the Judges and another 350 years under the kings. During that time, the Israelites were constantly falling into idolatry. They began to intermarry with the Canaanite women. They began to violate all the rules of God.
In response to their rebellion, God placed remedial judgment after remedial judgment after remedial judgment on the Israelites, but they would not repent. And so, the time came when God began to raise up prophetic voices like Elijah who called them to repentance. Yet again they refused to repent, until finally the time came when God decided that He had to eject the Israelites from the land. The northern nation of Israel was ejected from the land by the Assyrians in 722 BC. The Babylonians captured Judah 136 years later in 586 BC.
By God's grace and mercy, He allowed the Jews to return to the Promised Land after 70 years in Babylonian captivity. They rebuilt their temple in Jerusalem. But still, Israel continued in their rebellion against God. They continued to reject God. And when they finally rejected the Messiah - the Lord Jesus Christ - God allowed the Romans to come in, conquer the city of Jerusalem, burn the Temple, and begin to exile the Jewish people all over the world.
The Jews were exiled to the four corners of the earth so that by the beginning of the 20th Century there were Australian Jews, there were African Jews, and there were Latin American Jews. There were Jews dwelling in every country of the world, just as God said He would do if they persisted in their rebellion.
Again, the crucial point to keep in mind is that the Jews were dispersed from their land in discipline, but they were not disposed of their land. It was still their land. The Jews still hold the title to that land. That stands as a crucially important fact to keep in mind. The title to the Holy Land remains in the name of Israel, and it remains in their name to this very day.
The Real Palestinian State
Regarding the so-called Palestinians, it is very interesting that from 70 AD until 1948 AD, the year when Israel was re-established, Jerusalem had never been the capital of any Arab state. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab state, only of the Jewish state.
Also, there has never been a Palestinian state. Anti-semetics will tell people that all the problems in the Middle East are tied to the day that the Jews returned and "ran all the Palestinians out and took over their homes." What a lie! There has never been a Palestinian state. The Arabs who lived in the Levant considered themselves to be Syrians.
Historically proven, there never has been any Palestinian identity. There has never been a Palestinian culture. There was never any Palestinian language. It just simply doesn't exist! The idea of a Palestinian state, a people who were illegally displaced by the Jews, is pure propaganda developed by the Arabs after the Six Day War in 1967.
It is very important to keep in mind that the Palestinians already have a state and it is called Jordan. Some 75% of all the people who live in Jordan consider themselves Palestinians. So, when the Palestinians cry out to the world that they need a state, the truth is, they already legally have a state, and it's called Jordan.
The Logic Behind Israel's Presence In Judea And Samaria - By Marcel Serr -
Fifty years ago, Israel faced a looming attack from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. But on the morning of June 5, 1967, Israel's air force launched a pre-emptive strike against these enemies, and destroyed most of their aircraft in a matter of hours.
During the next five days, Israel's ground forces conquered the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the Old City of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.
Israel eventually pulled back from the Sinai Peninsula and made peace with Egypt, thereby ending its regional isolation. It also made peace with Jordan in the early 1990s, and withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
In contrast, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights because of the historical and religious value of the former, and the strategic importance of the latter.
No area, however, has impacted Israel more than Judea and Samaria.
Because of its ongoing administration of large parts of this territory, Israel faces serious international criticism -- and is often called an "occupier." So, is maintaining a presence in Judea and Samaria actually worth it?
The Oslo Accords and international law
During the late 1980s, direct talks between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel led to the Oslo Accords (1993-95), which divided the West Bank into three parts: Area A, Area B and Area C.
Area A comprises 18 percent of today's West Bank, and is under full control of the Palestinian Authority (PA). It contains all of the major Palestinian cities (Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus, etc.).
Area B (22 percent) is under the civil control of the PA, but Israel provides security there. Area C (60 percent) is administered by Israel. 2.8 million Arabs live in Areas A and B, and 350,000-400,000 Israelis live in Area C.
Israel's critics say that its presence in Judea and Samaria violates international law. However, Israel claims that this perspective ignores the historical background of the West Bank.
Jordan had illegally occupied this territory during Israel's War of Independence, and annexed it illegally in 1950.
In 1988, Jordan abandoned its claims on the West Bank. On this basis, Israel does not regard the West Bank as occupied territory, because it did not rightfully belong to another state before it became part of Israel.
Strategic imperative
But why is Jerusalem so interested in Judea and Samaria? Clearly, the area's religious significance to Judaism plays a role. However, the key reason for Israel's prolonged presence in the West Bank is her need for defensible borders.
A brief look into Israel's history is enough to explain why this is so.
Only three years after the Holocaust, the newly founded Jewish state fought for its existence against five Arab armies. In the following years, Israel faced a war on three fronts in 1967, and a surprise attack on two fronts in 1973.
Since then, Israel has become the target of numerous terrorist attacks at home and abroad, and has existed in an exceptionally hostile environment.
Thus, defensible borders are of utter importance. Israel cannot afford a huge standing army. That is why the IDF has only a small core of full-time soldiers.
Most of the army consists of conscripts and reservists. The latter have to be mobilized in times of war -- and in case of an attack, the professional soldiers and conscripts must keep the aggressors at bay until the reserves are called up.
By maintaining control of the West Bank, Israel's borders are easier to defend in case of emergency.
Indeed, the West Bank improves Israel's strategic situation tremendously, because it provides strategic depth. Keep in mind that at the narrowest point of Israel's pre-1967 borders, the country is only 14 kilometers wide.
Controlling Judea and Samaria also protects Israel from Palestinian violence. If the PA took control of the area, it could become a second Gaza Strip, where rockets are fired at civilians and terror attacks are launched on a near-daily basis.
That is why Israel must retain a certain presence in Judea and Samaria, regardless of the international criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.