Has Britain recognized 'Palestine'?

On Nov. 3, a United Kingdom government website reported that the U.K. has signed a "treaty between nations" with the Palestinian Authority.

Other than a brief mention or two on independent blogs, the media were silent until Israel National News discovered the article Nov. 5 and gave it lead-story status. Apparently, those of us on this side of the Atlantic were supposed to be – or were – still too lost in the aftermath of our midterm elections to notice. Thanks for catching it, INN.

"This agreement is the first ever bilateral treaty between the two nations," the U.K. government site chortled, as if betrayal of a longtime ally were an accomplishment to be proud of. "The U.K.'s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories today (3 November) for his first visit to Palestine since he assumed office. The Foreign Secretary is visiting the OPTs as part of a regional visit that includes Israel and Egypt."

Coverage by the Arab-language Ma'an News Agency states that Hague had signed a similar pact with Israel earlier in the day.

So, if Palestine is now a nation as the U.K. site declares, how Hague got from Israel – where his plane presumably landed – to the nattily abbreviated "OPTs" without crossing international borders, one has to wonder. But then, in the magical world of diplomacy, travel to other dimensions – including imaginary ones – is only a proclamation away.

TRENDING: Republicans move to replace GOP canvasser who voted to certify Biden win

Although no text of the "treaty between nations" is findable online as of this writing, the few sources currently available indicate the treaty mainly concerns cooperation in the film industry (I thought movies were haram). That doesn't matter, though, because the point is not the harmlessness of the subject matter but the identity of the signers.

Do you believe in miracles? Learn how Israel has persevered despite its many enemies, in the DVD chronicle: "Against All Odds: Israel Survives"

A "treaty between nations"? Pardon my ignorance, but exactly how does this differ from diplomatic recognition? If France signed a treaty with the sovereign "Land of Oz," would this not be newsworthy? If Germany signed a treaty with the "State of Lilliput," would no one notice or question? Earth to Great Britain: There is no nation named Palestine.

On another note, what does it mean to recognize, anyway?

"To acknowledge or treat as valid," the online Random House 2010 defines the word. "To recognize a claim … to acknowledge formally as entitled to treatment as a political unit … to acknowledge or accept formally a specified factual or legal situation … to recognize a successful revolutionary regime as the de facto government of the country (emphasis in the original)."

So there. The war is over. No shot has been fired, but one of the leaders of the former Free World has capitulated to a revolutionary entity's demands and recognized a terror state right smack dab in the middle of somebody else's country. Wasn't that easy? Now watch the rest of the dhimmi West follow suit, including Barack Obama, who still has two months left in his unbridled reign of anarchy. He now has the perfect precedent on which to base his forthcoming pathetic attempt at a legacy, and when it backfires he can blame the U.K.

I hate quoting the Bible so often. I really do. I hate it because I can hear readers' eyeballs roll in unison, all the way from their various locations to the little computer desk where I sit trying to pull this all together. But I'm going to quote it anyway, because no other single source gets half as close to describing the massive miscalculation we are about to bring on ourselves.

"We believe in a two-state solution," the British foreign secretary explains, "which sees security for Israel and a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with a just and agreed solution for refugees and Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two nations."

But the scenario God sees is different, and He must find it discouraging that so few who profess to follow Him even care enough to look up what He has to say.

"And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it" (Zechariah 12:3).

"It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:9).

"For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; the city shall be taken, the houses rifled, and the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity" (Zechariah 14:2).

There's your "shared capital," all right, but guess who will be calling the shots.

Now, why would "all nations" want to fight over this innocuous mid-sized city, with little military or strategic value and no oil reserves to speak of? Could it be that the Democrats were actually right a few years back when they claimed our Middle East policy was "all about the oil"? Could it be that no one makes that accusation anymore because oil – together with doing the bidding of those who control it – is now the basis of everyone's foreign policy?

A better question would be to ask how a Judean minor prophet could have gotten this amazing information 2,500 years ago, and how he managed to stash it away so securely that we still have it with us today, in every church and synagogue and bookstore in the civilized world, for everyone to read who really wants to know.

Perhaps a better approach for us would be to read his dire warning and pay attention to it.

Marylou Barry is a Christian Zionist with a special interest in the Middle East. She is also the author of a series of children's books. Visit her blog at Marylou's America and her book website at House with the Light Books.