Daily Times

The Palestinian Authority (PA) on last Tuesday announced to declare Palestine as a state along the internationally recognized 1967 borders if Israel moves ahead with its ulterior plan to annex parts of the West Bank. The said warning was issued by Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Ishtaye at a press conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Annexation is an “existential threat” that would mark the “total erosion of our national aspirations,” as it will kill any possibility of peace with Israel and erode “the Palestinian, regional and international consensus” on a two-state solution, Ishtaye told reporters. He said Palestine would not continue to wait on statehood just to honour previous agreements made with Israel if it broke them by annexing territory. “It takes two to tango’’, he added. The truth holds: annexing the Palestinian lands is tantamount to Israel’s practicing nothing but the law of the jungle which holds no global relevance; while  Ramallah holds a valid claim of ‘declaring statehood’ under international law.

Among the other alternatives, the international community could take sanctioning Israel in response to its declaring sovereignty over the West Bank, Ramallah could make an unquestionable claim to declare the Palestinian statehood on the parameters prior to the 1967 Arab -Israeli war. Actually, the process of creating new states is nonetheless a mixture of fact and law– involving the establishment of particular factual conditions and compliance with relevant rules. And the accepted criteria of statehood were laid down in the Montevideo Convention (1933), which served the basis of statehood by advocating that it must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to conduct international relations. In this context, the Palestinian Authority (PA), rightly meets the said criteria of statehood.

Factually,  Palestine has long been a state, even as control over its territory has changed hands. Formally this allows Palestine to participate more fully as a member of the international community as endorsed by the action of the UNGA that Palestine statehood does not depend on successful completion of negotiations between Palestine and Israel. The path is rightly open for Palestine membership in international organizations and for its accession to major multilateral treaties, as well as, the path is also open for the International Criminal Court to investigate the war crime of facilitating civilian settlements in territory under belligerent occupation.

Both the US and Israel have worked against strengthening the Palestinians’ international political clout, resisting the recognition of the Palestinian state until a peace settlement is reached in the intractable Arab-Israeli conflict which agrees on the formation of an independent Palestinian state

Firstly in 1974, the question of Palestine was tabled in the UNGA’s agenda. And it was Resolution 3236 (XXIX)  that reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property. Subsequently, in 1975, the UNGA established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The question of Palestine and related issues have remained the core subject of numerous resolutions and decisions adopted by the UNGA’s regular, special and emergency sessions. Palestinian statehood was unilaterally declared in 1988 and has been recognized by around 122 countries to date. In UN terms, becoming a UN member state requires a Security Council (SC) recommendation followed by a vote with a two-thirds majority (129 member states) in the General Assembly (GA). The Israeli leadership has always opposed the idea and the US has threatened they would use their veto to block the process in the UNSC. Nevertheless, there are a number of alternative routes that could be used by the Palestinians to bolster their case for statehood.

In April 2011, the UN’s Ad Hoc Liaison Committee and the IMF joined the World Bank in stating that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has the institutions and economic policies required of a well-functioning state. And similarly, the PM Salam Fayyad’s National Development Plan (2011-13) entitled ‘Establishing the State, Building the Future’ had also secured international backing.  On 12 December 2012, the PA informed the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon that the designation “State of Palestine” should be used in all documents and for its nameplate in all United Nations meetings. It further apprised the Secretary-General that Mahmoud Abbas as President of the State of Palestine. On 8 January 2013, Palestine informed the Secretary-General that the Head of Government was Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the State of Palestine was Riad Malki. In accordance with the formal request accompanied by the due process, the designation “State of Palestine” has been used in all documents of the United Nations and on nameplates to be used in United Nations meetings. Meanwhile, the State of Palestine continues to have been enjoying the right of participation in the sessions and work of the UNGA and the international conferences convened under the auspices of the GA or other organs of the United Nations, as well as in United Nations conferences, pursuant to resolutions 43/160 and 52/250 and as set out in the note by the Secretary-General on the participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations of 4 August 1998 (A/52/1002). Yet understandably, those rights are not affected by resolution 67/19.

And most significantly, in 2019, Palestine represented the Group of 77(now the group 0f 138 nations) at the UN as its chairman. This was a historical development not only for the Palestinian people but also for the developing nations The Group of 77 (G77) – the largest single coalition of developing countries at the UN. Under a system of geographical rotation, it was Asia’s turn to name a chairman for 2019. The Asian Group had unanimously endorsed Palestine.  “It’s a historical first, both for Palestine and the G77,” an Asian diplomat told IPS, pointing out that Palestine will be politically empowered to collectively represent 138 UN member states, including China. The choice of the Palestinians as the group’s chair for 2019 was undoubtedly a big diplomatic win for Ramallah. Both the US and Israel have worked against strengthening the Palestinians’ international political clout, resisting the recognition of the Palestinian state until a peace settlement is reached in the intractable Arab-Israeli conflict which agrees on the formation of an independent Palestinian state.

Though the UNGA’s resolutions are not legally binding on United Nations member States, they can positively contribute to the creation of binding international law. Resolutions of the General Assembly are a means through which States express their opinions about the status of international questions. A resolution that receives widespread support may therefore shape the content of customary international law, a primary source of international law. And as it goes an established fact when a legal principle becomes customary international law, it becomes automatically binding on States to the extent that they do not repeatedly and publicly announce opposition to the principle.

To be continued

The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan