THB that Palestinian Statehood should be recognised by the United Nations General Assembly

In any meaningful way Palestine is a state. It may well be one at war with a neighbour and in dispute over its boundaries but the only reason it has yet to be recognised is that it would be politically inconvenient for the US, Israel and their allies.

There are plenty of nations that do not function in line with European and North American concepts of statehood, Afghanistan for example, however they take their seat at the UN and add their voice to the choir of nations[i]. There are even other member states that are not recognised by every other member state, Israel is not recognised by 33 UN members[ii] and the People’s Republic of China is not recognised by 23 UN members.[iii]

[i] John Quigley. “Statehood for Palestine: International law in the Middle East Conflict”. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[ii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: Israel’, U.S. Department of State, 10 December 2010, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm

[iii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: China’, U.S. Department of State, 6 September 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm

Regardless of what people may wish, Palestine is not a state. It is probably the most recognised issue in twentieth century politics that the statehood of Palestine is a matter of dispute. The United Nations is the forum for those states that recognise each other’s existence to debate matters of mutual concern, it is not an opportunity from grandstanding and point-scoring over matters that are still under dispute.

Absolutely any group can design a flag, appoint a president, elect a congress, print stamps and undertake all sorts of similar activities, that does not make them a state. When squatters in a London road in 1977anounced that they were declaring a unilateral declaration of independence from the UK[i] they were not recognised as a state just because they wanted to be. Although the stakes are much higher in the case of Palestine, the principle is the same.

[i] Wikipedia. Frestonia.

Nobody can dispute that Palestine functions as a nation, its citizens are governed within the jurisdiction of a government that is one of the closest observed in the world. Abbas has as much right to speak for the Palestinian people as any other world leader does for theirs and that reality is reflected in the fact that he and other members of his administration negotiate with other nation states and international bodies. Palestine is for example a member of numerous International Organisations the most recent of which is joining UNESCO in November 2011.[i] If Palestine can be treated as a state for the purposes of signing international treaties and negotiating with the Israeli[ii] and other governments then it is only sensible that it should be awarded the benefits and status that come with statehood, of which recognition by the UN is one.

[i] UNESCO, ‘Palestine’, unesco.org, 2011, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/arab-states/palestine/

[ii] Jewish Virtual Library, ‘Israel-PLO Recognition’, 9 September 1993, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

International negotiations take place with many organisations that are not states in their own right. When the leaders of nations meet with trades union or corporations, pressure groups or networks it does not endow those bodies with statehood.

Likewise, regional governments and authorities routinely meet with national and international representatives without requiring representation at the UN. If Palestine were to be given voting rights at the General Assembly then one might as well give them to the International Olympic Committee, which already enjoys permanent observer status[i].

Put simply, having global recognition does not make an entity a state.

[i] “UN General Assembly Approves Olympic truce for London Games 2012”. 17 October 2011.

The territory claimed by both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine is contested. These matters should be settled by the UN but this is not possible when one of the parties is represented but the other is not. It is simply against the principles of natural justice – let alone the precepts of international law – for only one party in any dispute to be fully represented where the other is not.

Essentially, this is a fraud that has been perpetrated for over sixty years, in the interests of politics, justice has been ignored; Israel has been given recognition when Palestine has not, which body has the right to speak for the populace of that disputed territory should not be a matter imposed from outside but for the inhabitants of the land itself.

In law this point was settled with the creation of the state of Israel. The map of the Middle East, as with much of the rest of the world, was redrawn at the end of the second world war. The resulting nations, many of them newly created following the collapse of the European empires, formed the constituent members of the UN. The very fact that the Palestinians have successfully mounted their case to the international community in a way that, for example, Kurds or Australian Aboriginals have not, would suggest that they have no need of a seat at the UN to be heard.

In any meaningful way Palestine is a state. It may well be one at war with a neighbour and in dispute over its boundaries but the only reason it has yet to be recognised is that it would be politically inconvenient for the US, Israel and their allies.

There are plenty of nations that do not function in line with European and North American concepts of statehood, Afghanistan for example, however they take their seat at the UN and add their voice to the choir of nations[i]. There are even other member states that are not recognised by every other member state, Israel is not recognised by 33 UN members[ii] and the People’s Republic of China is not recognised by 23 UN members.[iii]

[i] John Quigley. “Statehood for Palestine: International law in the Middle East Conflict”. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[ii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: Israel’, U.S. Department of State, 10 December 2010, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm

[iii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: China’, U.S. Department of State, 6 September 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm

Regardless of what people may wish, Palestine is not a state. It is probably the most recognised issue in twentieth century politics that the statehood of Palestine is a matter of dispute. The United Nations is the forum for those states that recognise each other’s existence to debate matters of mutual concern, it is not an opportunity from grandstanding and point-scoring over matters that are still under dispute.

Absolutely any group can design a flag, appoint a president, elect a congress, print stamps and undertake all sorts of similar activities, that does not make them a state. When squatters in a London road in 1977anounced that they were declaring a unilateral declaration of independence from the UK[i] they were not recognised as a state just because they wanted to be. Although the stakes are much higher in the case of Palestine, the principle is the same.

[i] Wikipedia. Frestonia.

Nobody can dispute that Palestine functions as a nation, its citizens are governed within the jurisdiction of a government that is one of the closest observed in the world. Abbas has as much right to speak for the Palestinian people as any other world leader does for theirs and that reality is reflected in the fact that he and other members of his administration negotiate with other nation states and international bodies. Palestine is for example a member of numerous International Organisations the most recent of which is joining UNESCO in November 2011.[i] If Palestine can be treated as a state for the purposes of signing international treaties and negotiating with the Israeli[ii] and other governments then it is only sensible that it should be awarded the benefits and status that come with statehood, of which recognition by the UN is one.

[i] UNESCO, ‘Palestine’, unesco.org, 2011, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/arab-states/palestine/

[ii] Jewish Virtual Library, ‘Israel-PLO Recognition’, 9 September 1993, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

International negotiations take place with many organisations that are not states in their own right. When the leaders of nations meet with trades union or corporations, pressure groups or networks it does not endow those bodies with statehood.

Likewise, regional governments and authorities routinely meet with national and international representatives without requiring representation at the UN. If Palestine were to be given voting rights at the General Assembly then one might as well give them to the International Olympic Committee, which already enjoys permanent observer status[i].

Put simply, having global recognition does not make an entity a state.

[i] “UN General Assembly Approves Olympic truce for London Games 2012”. 17 October 2011.

The territory claimed by both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine is contested. These matters should be settled by the UN but this is not possible when one of the parties is represented but the other is not. It is simply against the principles of natural justice – let alone the precepts of international law – for only one party in any dispute to be fully represented where the other is not.

Essentially, this is a fraud that has been perpetrated for over sixty years, in the interests of politics, justice has been ignored; Israel has been given recognition when Palestine has not, which body has the right to speak for the populace of that disputed territory should not be a matter imposed from outside but for the inhabitants of the land itself.

In law this point was settled with the creation of the state of Israel. The map of the Middle East, as with much of the rest of the world, was redrawn at the end of the second world war. The resulting nations, many of them newly created following the collapse of the European empires, formed the constituent members of the UN. The very fact that the Palestinians have successfully mounted their case to the international community in a way that, for example, Kurds or Australian Aboriginals have not, would suggest that they have no need of a seat at the UN to be heard.

If the Palestinian people cannot agree on who speaks for them then what is the rest of the world to make of the situation? One of the defining attributes of statehood is a single, stable government that can, in some meaningful way, be said to have control over the lands within that designated territory. This was set out in article 1 of the Montevideo convention that a state should possess “a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”[i] Only the permanent population criteria is unequivocally met by Palestine.

The Palestinian Authority can barely be said to speak for itself let alone the people it claims to represent. By recognizing one faction over another, the UN would be taking sides in an internal, domestic affair. Abbas is not asking the UN to recognize Palestine, he’s asking it to recognize him rather than Hamas.

[i] International Conference of American States, ‘Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States’, 26 December 1933, http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897

Exactly the same point could be made of any number of member states. It is highly questionable as to whether the authority of the central governments of Afghanistan or Pakistan extends into much of their territory, it certainly doesn’t in Iraq or many of the nations in central Africa.

Much of Latin America is under the control of warlords and drug barons but nobody would suggest that they should be represented at the United Nations. Effective political control is ceded to devolved authorities in many nations but they are not recognised as states. Political confusion is no reason no ignore the existence of a state.

The entire Arab League is already perfectly capable of speaking for the Palestinian cause in the United Nations. There are established nations whose leaders have not addressed a full meeting of the General Assembly as frequently as leaders of the Palestinian cause, even the leader of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas has addressed the General Assembly as he did in September 2011.[i] It is the only geo-political issue that routinely impacts upon the conduct of the elections of other nations, the plight of the Palestinian issue is the stuff of newspaper headlines around the world while other, arguably more serious, concerns go unvoiced. It is difficult to see how admitting Palestine as a member state would bring any more focus to the issue in practical terms.

[i] ‘Full transcript of Abbas speech at UN General Assembly’, Haaretz.com, 23 September 2011, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-abbas-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386385

The United Nations fulfills a number of roles but perhaps its foremost function is to act as an arbiter in international disputes. To do that effectively it needs to reflect the opinions of the international community and deal in realpolitik. As things stand that would make it impossible for the organisation to take what would be seen as a partisan stance.

Recognising the existence of a state which could at best be described as aspirational, and at worst as a fantasy, would put an intolerable burden on the UN’s ability to act as an impartial agent in negotiations.

Establishing statehood is a matter for international law and, as things stand, Palestine is not a state. Since 1990, 34 new countries have been created – mostly as a result of the collapse of the former USSR[i]. Palestine is not among them and does not look set to be any time soon. There have been many separatist movements in countries all over the world from the Basque region to Aceh. These often have similarly legitimate grievances as the Palestinians but the UN does not recognise them. Any one of those nations, or at least movements within them may have wished for recognition by the UN but they did not receive it because the UN is bound to recognise what is, not what might be.

[i] Matt Rosenburg. “New Countries of the world”. 10 July 2011. About.com

Palestine is a unique case; the UN removed its statehood during the creation of Israel. They are, perhaps ironically, Ishmael and Isaac to the UN’s Abraham. One recognised and the other shunned.

The issue of statehood for Palestine was a misstep created at the inception of the UN as fallout of the decline of the British Empire and the emergence of American hegemony. If this were an entirely new issue of the world scene then many of the caveats raised by opposition would by justifiable but the reality is that this is simply a case of clearing up an old injustice.