Arguments for Palestinian State

Introduction

The dispute between Israel and Palestine has a long history. There is recognition under International Law that the people of Palestine have the right to determine themselves. Therefore, Palestinians have an unquestionable right to determine their destiny on their own pertaining to an independent state. The recognition of the Palestinian right to constitute a State does not depend on its status as a member of the United Nations, but the inalienable right to self determination. Recognition by third States' status as a new Palestinian state is not only declarative, establishing a factual situation in law and linked to the culmination of a process of decolonization. The United Nations has always recognized that the people of Palestine have the right to self determination. However, Israel has repeatedly condemned it.

Discussion

Israel considers the initiatives of the United Nations against its interest. This is due to the negative viewpoint of Israel against such actions. However, such insecurities by Israel cannot undermine the International Court of Justice and its legal considerations. In 2004, the International Court of Justice presented its advisory opinion, which made reference to the validity of building a wall in the occupied territory of Palestine. For the Court, Israel is the occupying power by the force of the territory of Palestine: any occupation or control of a territory, which results from the use of power, threat or force, is not legal.

Arguments for Palestine State

The issue is now before the United Nations. It is already obvious from the applause following President Abbas' speech at the UN General Assembly on September 23rd that a resolution to support Palestinian statehood would receive overwhelming support from the 193 UN member states, with only the United States threatening to veto the final legal act at the Security Council.

Maarti Ahtisaari and Xavier Solana recently wrote that there are ten or eleven reasons to support Palestinian statehood, in a confusing jumble of items that give the impression of a game to find 10+ arguments. They are as below:

To keep the two-state solution alive.

The EU has already invested hugely in a two-state solution, around €1 billion per year.

To respond to President Abbas's state-building achievements.

To avoid double standards in the context of the Arab Spring.

European interests in security of energy supplies and countering terrorism.

To strengthen the hand of the US administration in dealing with Israel.

In opening up negotiation options, it might help Israel.

It would not necessarily give Palestine easier recourse to the International Criminal Court.

It would not make Palestinian violence more likely.

A 'yes' at the UN does not entail recognition, which requires bilateral action.

It could be a positive, unified foreign policy act by the EU.

Curiously they have mostly omitted the basic arguments, namely the criteria for state recognition embedded in international law. These are the four criteria of the Montevideo Convention of 1932.

Extracts from the Montevideo Convention, 1933, on the rights and duties of states

Article 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) ...