Some things will never change...

Doug, you need to learn what unilateral means in the specific political context of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It has nothing to do with other countries.

They could have had a state in 1948. They are worse than a terror entity. And their own state? Lol, that won't bring the average Arab food on the table. besides candies.

With that kind of attitude Israel will really go far.But you see neither you or anyone else can stop history from happening.

SARAH,CAN YOU PLEASE BE MY FRIEND?!

...to join before or after your independent state will became Hamashstan?

Question: will the fireworks display commemorating this statehood consist of Grads and Kassams over Sderot and Ashkelon? If so, Israel would then have been attacked by a sovereign state, and the rules will be very different than they've been. So expect a much more brilliant extension of your celebration over Gaza City, courtesy of the IDF. Congratulations on your new statehood!

Apparently you couldn't prove it wrong could you? "International law has traditionally required that four separate criteria be satisfied before the recognition of an entity as an independent sovereign state can be considered: 1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control. 2. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control. 3. The entity must have the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations. 4. There must be effective and independent governmental control over a permanent population. Plus there are other criteria like here: "Would the Unilateral Establishment of a Palestinian "State" be the Result of Illegality? " Again the answer YES it would result in an illegality, which would make it null and void. Now remember that is just to be "considered" for statehood. The Palestinians meet NONE of the criteria. In addition according to the experts we have this: "a state violates international law and thus infringes upon the rights of other states if it recognizes as a state a community which does not fulfill the requirements of international law." So the above statement means if a state doesn't meet the criteria, it violate International Law for another state to accept a state that doesn't meet that criteria. WHOOPS!!!. These are complicated issues and most people like yourself think it's a popularity contest, it isn't,. It the Law. Look up the term Unilateral contract/Declaration for yourself. The person/company/country that makes a Unilateral declaration (the offer), to the other person/company/country (the one receiving the offer), is NOT bound by it. That only makes sense. Otherwise you could impose your will on any country. In fact by your logic, Israel could Unilaterally decide to offer nothing and annex the West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem, make them all part of Israel. There is no difference between the two. That is precisely what the Arabs are wanting to do, they can't, it's illegal.

Naive littl you. Just wait until Hamas gains control the way it did in Gaza. Whatever limited freedoms and prosperity the west bank nowenjoys will be a thing of the past. Next stop - total islamification. And if "Palestine" becaomes a legitimate state in the eyes fof the world, then one rocket over the border will constitue an act of war to which Israel can legitimately respond - hopefully without paying any lip service to "proportionality". Be careful what you wish for Salma.

Of course! I would be delighted! (Thank you for your kind words.)

Your "idea" is the dumbest thing I've run across in many a year