Back in 2005, after Israel removed every soldier and settler from Gaza, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that “from this day forward, there will be no security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions, which are not characteristic of our culture.” He proved a poor prognosticator regarding Palestinian culture: given the chance to live “side by side in peace and security” with Israel, the Palestinians demonstrated they could not do so even with themselves.
Abbas was expelled from Gaza in 2007; there have been no parliamentary or presidential elections since 2006; no functioning Palestinian legislature exists; Abbas is entering the 95th month of his 48-month term; he cannot set foot in half of his purported state (in the words of Israel’s UN ambassador, he cannot even see it with binoculars); he has refused to negotiate with Israel for more than four years; he demands recognition of a Palestinian state while refusing to recognize a Jewish one; and he now seeks admission to the UN as a non-member state even though “Palestine” meets none of the four requirements under international law for a state.
Under the Montevideo Convention (1933), a state “should possess the following qualifications”: (1) a defined territory; (2) a government; (3) capacity to enter into relations with the other states; and (4) a permanent population.
“Palestine” lacks a “defined territory.” A “defined territory” cannot include an area whose status and borders can only be defined, under longstanding international agreements, by negotiations. To have a defined territory, “Palestine” has to negotiate it with Israel; until then, its self-definition of territory is not a “defined territory” under the law; it is simply a negotiating position.
“Palestine” lacks a “government.” It is ruled half by a terrorist group and half by an unelected administrative entity. Its last election occurred nearly seven years ago, and it has no capacity (much less inclination) to hold a new one. The government of each half considers the government of the other half illegitimate, and both are correct: one regime took power by a coup, and the other remains in power four years after its term expired. There is no legal governing body in either half of the purported state, much less one that governs both.
“Palestine” lacks the “capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Abbas has no capacity to bind the rulers of Gaza, nor even to implement his own commitments in the area in which he can at least set foot. While in office, he failed to implement his prior obligations, including Phase I of the Roadmap (which mandated the dismantling of Hamas and other terrorist groups), and he is currently an unelected official, unrecognized by half his putative state, with no capacity to bind “Palestine” to anything.
“Palestine” lacks a “permanent population.” Most of the population considers themselves not putative citizens of a new state but perennial “refugees” — an inherited status under the unique definition applicable to Palestinians — who reject any suggestion they should form the permanent population of a new state. They consider themselves instead to be temporary residents (and UNRWA, the UN agency devoted to caring for them, is legally a “temporary” UN body) who seek to “return” to a different state, not to be permanent residents where they currently live.
When you refuse to negotiate a defined territory (and demand instead that it be conceded before you deign to “negotiate”); when you lack a government that controls your purported territory (and instead have multiple regimes each lacking legitimacy); when you lack the capacity to enter into relations with other states (and ignore the agreements you already signed); and when you have residents who reject permanent residence and assert instead a “right” to “return” to another state, you meet none of the requirements for a state.
The irony is that between 2000 and 2008, the Palestinians received three formal offers of a state, and rejected them all — the modern equivalent of the Three Nos. Now one group of Palestinians seeks UN recognition as a “non-member state,” when they fail to qualify as a state at all, and they ignore the fact they could already have been a member-state three times over (or more), had they simply said yes. As Stephen J. Rosen noted last year, they have:
two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution whose most central provisions are violated by both sides, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold elections, a population mostly not under its control, borders that would annex territory under the control of other powers, and no clear path to resolve any of these conflicts.
Once again, “Palestine” is all set to be a failed state, no more ready for statehood than it was a year ago. Article 10 of the Montevideo Convention provides that the “primary interests of states is the conservation of peace.” The Palestinian gambit at the UN is not intended to produce peace, but to provide a platform for law-fare. It will do nothing to bring the Palestinians closer to the state they could have had long ago, if a state were really what they wanted, and it will in fact put peace further away.
Rick has done an admirable job of showing how, according the definition of a state, "Palestine" has no right to observer status at the U.N. Enough said? Not even close. n nThere's a flip side to this and it is what the UN will say, and how the UN functions. The fact that Abbas should have quit even before he starts, but didn't, shows that he knows the usual rules do not apply to him. Yes, he may be rejected. But at the UN the rules that Israel, for example, has to follow and have been bent to the detriment of the Jewish state, do not apply to Abbas and his bid. n nThe UN is a fickle body and its members, while formally declaring rules and guidelines, do not uniformly apply those rules. Israel is a pariah there, constantly told she is an apartheid state, told she has no right to exist, should not defend herself, and is attacked (both verbally and physically) by other member states. Yet, other states do not support Israel and are, in fact, hostile to her, nor do they rebuke those members who seek her destruction. n nSo, while we can show how wrong Abbas is in his quest, the ultimate absurdity here is the UN itself. If Abbas had any respect for the UN, and if the UN had any consistency to its own rules to serve its members, this bid would be dead. That it's not, that Abbas is going forward, shows just how warped and unruly is the UN itself. Abbas, while not directly meaning to, shows the hostility of the UN to Israel. n
All true, but Abbas does have one fact on his side that trumps UN precedents and conventions. n nHis enemies are Jews, so all precedents and conventions unfavorable to him get tossed out the window, run over by a car, and set on fire.
Very useful article. I had already known that Palestine had been offered a two state solution three times and refused all of them. I did not know that it had no real government or that terrorists ran half of the country (which makes sense since the Palestinians launch rockets at Israeli civilian populations).
“from this day forward, there will be no security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions, which are not characteristic of our culture.” n nIf you re-write it without the comma, it becomes a true statement. In other words, the only remaining security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions are those that are characteristic of their culture.
"It is ruled half by a terrorist group and half by an unelected administrative entity." n n nIt is ruled half by a blatant terrorist group and half by an unelected less blatant terrorist group that glorifies mass murderers who have killed civilians, and advocates in Arabic for the destruction of every bit of Israel, while occassionally making noises in English or Hebrew about peace, while rejecting every overture toward actually achieving peace.
The world has separate rules in favor of Palestinians and against Israelis. UNWRA is the most blatant example of this. 20 million refugees in the 20th century and only the Palestinians have a UN agency dedicated to keeping them that way.
and remember too, Dave, that UNRWA is responsible for distributing textbooks to Palestinian children in the camps. textbooks–paid for partly by We The People–that contain the vilest lies about Jews and Israel, and which are designed to keep the hate going for years and years. THAT's child abuse, in my opinion.
Current course and speed they'll completely Islamist and outlaw literacy. Who cares how deep a hole they dig for themselves.
It is tempting though to cut them loose in Gaza and tell them to make a go of it. As long as Israel cuts off all services, trade, cross border traffic. Open the sea lanes for them, Hell they can even have helicopters and such as long as don't fly over Israel. Let them sort out their relations with Egypt or not. And when they attack Israel it's a bona fide act of war.
Under the Montevideo Convention (1933), Somaliland is eligible for statehood, except the African Union rules forbid re-drawing any post-colonial borders. nMaybe Israel should join the AU.
The international community does not care! The Muslim world and the West will insist for the creation of a new Islamic state. The West subsidizes student books filled with hate towards the Jews.
U need an education then come back!
Really. There were so many misconceptions and false "facts" in David's post that it's hard to know where to begin.