14
   

Palestinian Statehood, a Travesty

 
 
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 10:44 am
'Palestine' Does Not Qualify as a 'State'
by Rick Richman, Commentary Magazine, November 13, 2012

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.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 14 • Views: 10,807 • Replies: 245

 
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:13 am
@Advocate,
If Palestine is not a State, then the people living there are living in Israel. As such they should be given citizenship and allowed to participate in Israel's democracy. A real democracy can't just keep ignoring that real human beings are living there that have basic human rights.

I would be fine with that outcome.

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:39 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
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.
I wonder what a convention from 1933/1934 has to do with it. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series, however, we've got the UN since more than 60 years. (And there, it's regulated in the United Nations Charter, Chapter II, Article 4.)

But that's for member states only. Since Palestine wants to become a 'non-member state', it would have the same status as e.g. the Holy See, Kosovo ...
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:45 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The term "law-fare" is a really interesting term. Is the writer accusing the Palestinians of trying to use the rule of law to get Israel to behave itself?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:48 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I wonder what a convention from 1933/1934 has to do with it.


It provides the Zionists with pretexts, irrelevant as they are, for perpetuating their repression of the Palestinian peoples.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:51 am
@maxdancona,
And it's interesting that many pretend to be in favour of democracy in Libya, Syria and Egypt but seem to accept the Palestinians continuing to live under occupation ...
Advocate
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 12:07 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

If Palestine is not a State, then the people living there are living in Israel. As such they should be given citizenship and allowed to participate in Israel's democracy. A real democracy can't just keep ignoring that real human beings are living there that have basic human rights.

I would be fine with that outcome.




How silly! Does this apply also to the middle of Africa where there is no formal state? You mean all those areas are legally part of Israel?
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 12:12 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Does this apply also to the middle of Africa where there is no formal state?


What an idiot.
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 12:20 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Does this apply also to the middle of Africa where there is no formal state? You mean all those areas are legally part of Israel?
The middle of Africa consists of which areas where there isn't a state?
http://i47.tinypic.com/28cklzp.jpg
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 01:26 pm
@Setanta,
He is an Israel can do no wrong Idiot.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 02:23 pm
@Advocate,
You are blinded by your own ignorance about this whole subject on Palestine-Israel. Give it up; you're too stupid to understand basic human needs.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 02:31 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

And it's interesting that many pretend to be in favour of democracy in Libya, Syria and Egypt but seem to accept the Palestinians continuing to live under occupation ...


How silly! Palestinian Israelis live in the only democracy in the Middle East.

Moreover, the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza would hardly accept help from Israel in forming a democracy.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 02:41 pm
@Advocate,
You don't have any understanding for the definition of "democracy." None.

Quote:
Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.


From Wiki.
Quote:
Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including Jewish-only settlements, separate roads, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 02:57 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And it's interesting that many pretend to be in favour of democracy in Libya, Syria and Egypt but seem to accept the Palestinians continuing to live under occupation ...


How silly! Palestinian Israelis live in the only democracy in the Middle East.

Moreover, the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza would hardly accept help from Israel in forming a democracy.
Obviously you totally misunderstood my post.
I wrote:
And it's interesting that many pretend to be in favour of democracy in Libya, Syria and Egypt but seem to accept the Palestinians continuing to live under occupation ...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 03:06 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Moreover, the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza would hardly accept help from Israel in forming a democracy.
Well, you can't dispute that they have got what is generally known as a "Parliamentary democracy".
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 04:12 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The ignorance of you, ci, Setanta, et al., is appalling. For one, there is a large area in the Western Sahara that is occupied territory. The English name is ‎ Aṣ-Ṣaḥrā’ al-Gharbīyah, Spanish: Sahara Occidental. It is in North Africa, bordered by Morocco to the north, Algeria to the northeast, Mauritania to the east and south, and the Atlantic Ocean to the west.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 04:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You don't have any understanding for the definition of "democracy." None.

Quote:
Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.


From Wiki.
Quote:
Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including Jewish-only settlements, separate roads, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law.



Duh, who said that the occupied territories are democracies. I didn't.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 04:34 pm
@Advocate,
You mean to tell us that Gaza is not in Israel? That's news to me!
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 05:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You mean to tell us that Gaza is not in Israel? That's news to me!


God, are you really that stupid?
RST
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 06:01 pm
@Advocate,
Since God is theoretically omniscient, he really can't be that stupid.
 

Related Topics

Obunga and Israel... - Discussion by gungasnake
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
Iran Stalls, Centrifuges Spin - Discussion by Advocate
Abbas At the UN - Discussion by Advocate
Israel, An Oasis of Peace and Prosperity - Discussion by Advocate
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Palestinian Statehood, a Travesty
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/01/2022 at 11:02:03