| Palestine[1] فلسطين Filastin | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Anthem: Biladi adopted 1996 – Mawtiny was adopted from 1936 till 1995 | ||||||
 | ||||||
| Capital | Jerusalem (proclaimed)[i][1][2] Ramallah, Gaza (administrative) | |||||
| Largest city | 1 Gaza | |||||
| Official language(s) | Arabic | |||||
| Government | Semi-presidential; Parliamentary democracy | |||||
| - | President | Mahmoud Abbas | ||||
| - | Prime Minister | Salam Fayad , Ismail Haniya (disputed) | ||||
| Establishment | ||||||
| - | Declared | November 15, 1988 | ||||
| Area | ||||||
| - | Total | 1 6,020 km2 (West Bank: 5,660 km2, Gaza Strip: 360 km2) 1 2,230 sq mi | ||||
| Population | ||||||
| - | 2010 (July) estimate | 1 4,260,636 (124th) | ||||
| GDP (PPP) | 1 2008 estimate | |||||
| - | Total | 1 $11.95 billion (–) | ||||
| - | Per capita | 1 $2,900 (–) | ||||
| HDI (2007) | 1  0.731 (medium) (106th) | |||||
| Currency | 1 Jordanian dinar Egyptian Pound Israeli shekel ( JOD, EGP, ILS) | |||||
| Time zone | (UTC+2) | |||||
| - | Summer (DST) | (UTC+3) | ||||
| Internet TLD | .ps | |||||
| Calling code | +9702 | |||||
| 1 | Population and economy statistics and rankings are based on the Palestinian territories | |||||
| 2 | +972 is also used as well. | |||||
 | Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, filastin),[2][Need quotation to verify][1] officially declared as the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين, dawlat filastin)[3] is a state that was proclaimed in exile in Algiers on 15 November 1988, when the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) National Council (PNC) adopted the unilateral Palestinian Declaration of Independence.
At the time of the 1988 declaration, the PLO did not exercise control over any territory,[4] and its claimed territory remains under Israeli occupation.[5][6] It claims the Palestinian territories[3] and has designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[i][1][2] despite Israeli control.
The State of Palestine is quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms.[7] Some countries recognized the state of Palestine, while other countries announced they welcomed this step without explicitly declaring recognition. Many of the countries that don't recognize the State of Palestine nevertheless recognise the PLO as the "representative of the Palestinian people". In addition the PLO executive committee is empowered by the PNC to perform the functions of government of the State of Palestine.[8]
On 28 October 1974, the 1974 Arab League summit held in Rabat designated the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and reaffirmed their right to establish an independent state of urgency."[9] The PLO has had observer status at the United Nations as a "non-state entity" since 22 November 1974,[10][11] which entitles it to speak in the UN General Assembly but not to vote. In the list of "non-member states and entities", the PLO is categorized under "Other entities having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and are maintaining permanent offices at Headquarters".[12] After the Declaration of Independence the United Nations General Assembly officially "acknowledged" the proclamation and voted to use the designation "Palestine" instead of "Palestine Liberation Organization" when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.[13][14][15] In spite of this decision, the PLO does not participate at the UN in its capacity of the State of Palestine's government.[16] Since 1998, the PLO is arranged for seating in the United Nations General Assembly immediately after non-member States, and before all other observers.[17][18]
In 1993, in the Oslo Accords, Israel acknowledged the PLO negotiating team as "representing the Palestinian people", in return for the PLO recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace, acceptance of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and its rejection of "violence and terrorism".[19] While Israel currently occupies the Palestinian territories,[j] as a result of the Oslo Accords it allowed the PLO to establish an interim administrative body: the Palestinian National Authority (PNA or PA), that exercises some governmental functions in parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[20] The PNA was made accountable to the PLO Executive Committee, and the PLO is the ultimate authority of the PNA. No reference is made in the Accords to the 1988 declaration of the State of Palestine.
The State of Palestine consists of the following institutions:
- President of the State of Palestine[21] — title assumed by the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization,[22]
- Palestinian National Council — the legislature that established the State of Palestine,[3]
- Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization — performs the functions of a government in exile,[23][24] maintaining an extensive foreign relations network.
These should be distinguished from the following institutions, which are instead associated with the Palestinian National Authority: President of the Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), PNA Cabinet.
The State of Palestine founding document is the Palestinian Declaration of Independence,[3] and it should be distinguished from the unrelated PLO Palestinian National Covenant and PNA Palestine Basic Law.
"Palestine" is officially used as short form reference to the State of Palestine,[2] but this should be distinguished from the homonymous usage of the reference for the PNA,[1] the PLO as UN observer entity,[13] the Palestine as region or territory, and the other ideas about establishment of and proposals for a Palestinian state.
[edit] Background
The Levant formed part of the Ottoman Empire from 1518. In 1917, it was occupied by Britain during the First World War. However, there was no administrative unit under the Ottoman Empire corresponding to what came to be known as Palestine and the boundaries were determined as part of the process of formation of the British Mandate of Palestine after the War.[25] Since the British Mandate, the term "Palestine" has been associated with the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,[25] though the British Mandate also covered present day Jordan.
[edit] The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence
In the early years of the First World War, negotiations took place between the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, Husayn bin Ali for an alliance of sorts with the Arabs against the Ottomans in Arab Near East. On 24 October 1915, McMahon sent to Hussein a note which the Arabs treated as their "Declaration of Independence". In McMahon's letter, part of the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, McMahon declared Britain's willingness to recognise the independence of the Arabs, both in the Levant and the Hejaz, subject to certain exemptions. It stated on behalf of the Government of Great Britain that:
The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation. Subject to that modification, and without prejudice to the treaties concluded between us and certain Arab Chiefs, we accept that delimitation. As for the regions lying within the proposed frontiers, in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to interests of her ally France, I am authorized to give you the following pledges on behalf of the Government of Great Britain, and to reply as follows to your note: That subject to the modifications stated above, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sherif of Mecca.[26]
The exemptions from Arab control of certain areas set out in the McMahon note were to seriously complicate the problems of peace in the Near East. At the time, the Arab portions of the Ottoman Empire were divided into administrative units called vilayets and sanjaks. Palestine was divided into the sanjuks of Acre and Nablus, both of which were a part of the vilayet of Beirut, and an independent sanjak of Jerusalem. The areas exempted from Arab control by the McMahon note included "Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo." The British understanding was that "Damascus" meant the vilayet and not the city of Damascus, and accordingly virtually all of Palestine was excluded from Arab control. The British entered into the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement on 16 May 1916 and the commitment of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, for example, on that understanding.
The Arabs, however, insisted at the Paris Peace Conference at the end of the War that "Damascus" meant the city of Damascus – which left Palestine in their hands.[27] However, in 1915, these problems of interpretation did not occur to Hussein, who agreed to the British wording. The Arab interpretation of the agreement formed the basis of Arab claims to Palestine at the Peace Conference.
[edit] League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
Despite Arab objections based in part on the Arab interpretation of the McMahon correspondence noted above, Britain was given the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was administered as two territories: Palestine and Transjordan,[28] with the Jordan River being the boundary between them. The boundaries under the Mandate also did not follow those sought by the Jewish community, which sought the inclusion of the east bank of the Jordan into the Palestinian territory, to which the objective of the Mandate for a homeland for the Jewish people would apply. It was made clear from before the commencement of the Mandate, and a clause to that effect was inserted in the Mandate, that the objective set out in the Mandate would not apply to Transjordan. Transjordan was destined for early independence. The objective of the Mandate was to apply only to territory west of the Jordan, which was commonly referred to as Palestine by the British administration, and as Eretz Israel by the Jewish community.
[edit] The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee
The framers of the Arab League sought to include the Palestinian Arabs within the framework of the League from its inception.[29] An annex to the League Pact declared:[30]
Even though Palestine was not able to control her own destiny, it was on the basis of the recognition of her independence that the Covenant of the League of Nations determined a system of government for her. Her existence and her independence among the nations can, therefore, no more be questioned de jure than the independence of any of the other Arab States. [...] Therefore, the States signatory to the Pact of the Arab League consider that in view of Palestine's special circumstances, the Council of the League should designate an Arab delegate from Palestine to participate in its work until this country enjoys actual independence.
In November 1945, the Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee comprising twelve members[31] as the supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine. The committee was dominated by the Palestine Arab Party and was immediately recognised by Arab League countries. The Mandate government recognised the new Committee two months later. The Constitution of the League of Arab States says the existence and independence of Palestine cannot be questioned de jure even though the outward signs of this independence have remained veiled as a result of force majeure.[32]
[edit] Partition of Palestine
In 1947, the United Nations proposed the partition of Mandate Palestine into an Arab state, a Jewish state, and a Corpus Separatum for Jerusalem. While the Jewish leaders accepted the partition plan, the Arab leadership in the Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it, opposing any partition.[33][34][35][36][37]
On April 12, 1948, the Arab League announced:
The Arab armies shall enter Palestine to rescue it. His Majesty (King Farouk, representing the League) would like to make it clearly understood that such measures should be looked upon as temporary and devoid of any character of the occupation or partition of Palestine, and that after completion of its liberation, that country would be handed over to its owners to rule in the way they like.[38]
Ernest A. Gross, a senior U.S. State Department legal adviser, authored a memorandum for the United States government titled Recognition of New States and Governments in Palestine, dated 11 May 1948. He expressed the view that "The Arab and Jewish communities will be legally entitled on May 15, 1948 (the date of expiry of the British Mandate) to proclaim states and organize governments in the areas of Palestine occupied by the respective communities." Gross also said "the law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organize a state and operate a government."[39]
On 14 May 1948, the Jewish community of Mandate Palestine declared independence on approximately three quarters of Mandate Palestine's territory.[40][41][42] or 16.3 percents of the original territory of the British Mandate.[43] The event marked the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. After the war, the territory known today as the West Bank was annexed to Jordan, and the territory known as the Gaza Strip was put under Egyptian military administration. The Arab League "supervised" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was "without prejudice to the final settlement".[44][45]
[edit] West Bank and Gaza Strip, 1948–1967
[edit] West Bank
During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied the area of Cisjordan now called the West Bank, which it continued to control in accordance with the 1949 Armistice Agreements and a political union formed in December 1948. Military Proclamation Number 2 of 1948 provided for the application in the West Bank of laws that were applicable in Palestine on the eve of the termination of the Mandate. On 2 November 1948, the military rule was replaced by a civilian administration by virtue of the Law Amending Public Administration Law in Palestine. Military Proclamation Number 17 of 1949, Section 2, vested the King of Jordan with all the powers that were enjoyed by the King of England, his ministers and the High Commissioner of Palestine by the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922. Section 5 of this law confirmed that all laws, regulations and orders that were applicable in Palestine until the termination of the Mandate would remain in force until repealed or amended.[46]
The Second Arab-Palestinian Congress (1948)[47] was held in Jericho on December 1, 1948. The delegates proclaimed Abdullah King of Palestine and called for a union of Arab Palestine with the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.[48] Avi Plascov says that Abdullah contacted the Nashashibi opposition, local mayors, mukhars, those opposed to the Husaynis, and opposition members of the AHC. Plascov said that the Palestinian Congresses were conducted in accordance with prevailing Arab custom. He also said that contrary to the widely held belief outside Jordan the representatives did reflect the feelings of a large segment of the population.[49]
Sandra Berliant Kadosh analyzed United States policy toward the West Bank in 1948, based largely on the Foreign Relations Documents of the United States. She noted that the U.S. government believed that the most satisfactory solution regarding the disposition of the greater part of Arab Palestine would be incorporation in Transjordan and that the State Department approved the Principle underlying the Jericho resolutions.[50] Kadosh said that the delegates claimed to represent 90 percent of the population, and that they ridiculed the Gaza government. They asserted that it represented only its eighty-odd members.[51]
The Transjordanian Government agreed to the unification on December 7, 1948, and on December 13 the Transjordanian parliament approved the creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The change of status was reflected by the adoption of a new official name. The "Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements" says that the name of Transjordan was officially changed on 21 January 1949 to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.[52] Unification was ratified by a joint Jordanian National Assembly on 24 April 1950 which comprised 20 representatives each from the East and West Bank. The Act of Union contained a protective clause which preserved Arab rights in Palestine "without prejudice to any final settlement".[44][46]
The U.S. Department of State Bulletin for the first quarter of 1950 contained an article about the Clapp Mission to the Middle Eastern countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Arab Palestine, and Syria. The UN Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East, headed by Gordon R. Clapp, recommended four development projects, involving the Wadi Zerqa basin in Jordan, the Wadi Qelt watershed and stream bed in Arab Palestine, the Litani River in Lebanon, and the Ghab valley in Syria.[53] U.S. President Harry Truman subsequently announced that the Foreign Economic Assistance Act of 1950 contained an appropriation of US$27 million dollars for the development projects recommended by the Clapp Mission and to assist Palestinian refugees.[54]
Many legal scholars say the declaration of the Arab League and the Act of Union implied that Jordan's claim of sovereignty was provisional, because it had always been subject to the emergence of the Palestinian state.[55][56] A political union was legally established by the series of proclamations, decrees, and parliamentary acts in December 1948. Abdullah thereupon took the title King of Jordan, and he officially changed the country's name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in April 1949. The 1950 Act of Union confirmed and ratified King Abdullah's actions. Following the annexation of the West Bank, only two countries formally recognized the union: Britain and Pakistan.[57] Thomas Kuttner notes that de facto recognition was granted to the regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States.[58] Joseph Weiler agreed, and said that other states had engaged in activities, statements, and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition.[59] Joseph Massad said that the members of the Arab League granted de facto recognition and that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem.[60][61]
The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949.[62] President Truman told King Abdullah that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine had been stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by the American representative. The US supported Israeli claims to the boundaries set forth in the UN General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, but believed that if Israel sought to retain additional territory in Palestine allotted to the Arabs, it should give the Arabs territorial compensation.[63]
Clea Bunch said that "President Truman crafted a balanced policy between Israel and its moderate Hashemite neighbours when he simultaneously extended formal recognition to the newly created state of Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan. These two nations were inevitably linked in the President's mind as twin emergent states: one serving the needs of the refugee Jew, the other absorbing recently displaced Palestinian Arabs. In addition, Truman was aware of the private agreements that existed between Jewish Agency leaders and King Abdullah I of Jordan. Thus, it made perfect sense to Truman to favour both states with de jure recognition."[64]
In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a memorandum of conversation held on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation: Mr. Rifai asked when the United States was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan. Mr. Rockwell explained the U.S. government's position, stating that it was not the custom of the United States to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the U.S. did in fact recognize the union.[54]
[edit] Gaza Strip
Egypt supervised an independent government of Palestine in Gaza as a trustee on behalf of the Arab League.[65] An Egyptian Ministerial order dated June 1, 1948 declared that all laws in force during the Mandate would continue to be in force in the Gaza Strip. Another order issued on August 8, 1948 vested an Egyptian Administrator-General with the powers of the High Commissioner. The All-Palestine Government issued a Declaration of the Independent State of Palestine on October 1, 1948.[66] In 1957, the Basic Law of Gaza established a Legislative Council that could pass laws which were given to the High Administrator-General for approval. In March 1962, a Constitution for the Gaza Strip was issued confirming the role of the Legislative Council.[46]
[edit] West Bank and Gaza Strip under occupation
The West Bank and Gaza Strip has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.
At the Rabat summit conference in 1974, Jordan and the other members of the Arab League declared that the PLO was the "sole legitimate representative of the [Arab] Palestinian people", thereby relinquishing to that organization its role as representative of the West Bank.
The Amman Agreement of February 11, 1985, declared that the PLO and Jordan would pursue a proposed confederation between the state of Jordan and a Palestinian state.[67] In 1988, King Hussein dissolved the Jordanian parliament and renounced Jordanian claims to the West Bank. The PLO assumed responsibility as the Provisional Government of Palestine and an independent state was declared.[68]
The West Bank and Gaza Strip continue to be considered by the international community to be Occupied Palestinian Territory, notwithstanding the 1988 declaration of Palestinian independence, the limited self-government accorded to the Palestinian Authority as a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as part of the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2005, which saw the dismantlement of four Israeli settlements in the West Bank and all settlements in the Gaza Strip.[69] See also Consequences of the occupation in the Legal status section below.
[edit] History
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011) |
In 1946, Transjordan gained independence from the British Mandate for Palestine. A year later, the UN adopted a partition plan for a two-state solution in the remaining territory of the mandate. The plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by the Arab leaders and Britain refused to implement the plan. On the eve of final British withdrawal, the Jewish Agency for Israel declared the establishment of the "State of Israel" according to the proposed UN plan. The Arab Higher Committee didn't declare a state of its own and instead, together with Transjordan, Egypt, and the other members of the Arab League of the time, started the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. During the war, Israel gained additional territories that were expected to form part of the Arab state under the UN plan. Egypt gained control over the Gaza Strip and Transjordan gained control over the West Bank. Egypt initially supported the creation of an All-Palestine Government, but disbanded it in 1959. Transjordan never recognised it and instead decided to incorporate the West Bank with its own territory to form Jordan. The annexation was ratified in 1950. The Six-Day War in 1967, when Egypt, Jordan and Syria fought against Israel, ended with significant territorial expansion by Israel, including the whole of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which remain under Israeli occupation.[70][71]
In 1964, when the West Bank was controlled by Jordan, the Palestine Liberation Organization was established there with the goal to confront Israel. The Palestinian National Charter of the PLO defines the boundaries of Palestine as the whole remaining territory of the mandate, including Israel. Following the Six-Day War, the PLO moved to Jordan, but later relocated to Lebanon after Black September in 1971. In 1974, the Arab League recognised the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and it gained observer status at the UN General Assembly. After the 1982 Lebanon War, the PLO moved to Tunisia.
In 1979, through the Camp David Accords Egypt signaled an end to any claim of its own over the Gaza Strip. In July 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank — with the exception of guardianship over Haram al-Sharif — to the PLO. In November 1988, the PLO legislature, while in exile, declared the establishment of the "State of Palestine". In the month following, it was quickly recognised by many states, including Egypt and Jordan. In the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, the State of Palestine is described as being established on the "Palestinian territory", without specififying further. Because of this, some of the countries that recognised the State of Palestine in their statements of recognition refer to the "1967 borders", thus recognising as its territory only the occupied Palestinian territory, and not Israel. During the negotiations of the Oslo Accords, the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist, and Israel recognised the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people. Between 1993 and 1998, the PLO made commitments to change the provisions of its Palestinian National Charter that are inconsistent with the aim for a two-state solution and peaceful coexistence with Israel.
After Israel took control of the Palestinian territories from Jordan and Egypt, it began to establish Israeli settlements there.[72] These were organised into Judea and Samaria district (West Bank) and Hof Aza Regional Council (Gaza Strip) in the Southern District. Administration of the Arab population of these territories was performed by the Israeli Civil Administration of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and by local municipal councils present since before the Israeli takeover. In 1980, Israel decided to freeze elections for these councils and to establish instead Village Leagues, whose officials were under Israeli influence. Later this model became ineffective for both Israel and the Palestinians, and the Village Leagues began to break up, with the last being the Hebron League, dissolved in February 1988.[73] As envisioned in the Oslo Accords, Israel allowed the PLO to establish interim administrative institutions in the Palestinian territories, which came in the form of the PNA. It was given civilian and/or[which?] security control in some areas. In 2005, following the implementation of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, the PNA gained full control of the Gaza Strip with the exception of its borders, airspace, and territorial waters.[j] Following the inter-Palestinian conflict in 2006, Hamas took over control of the Gaza Strip (it already had majority in the PLC), and Fatah took control of the West Bank (and the rest of the PNA institutions[citation needed]). Currently the Gaza Strip is governed by Hamas, and the West Bank by Fatah.
[edit] Arab state under the UN Partition Plan
The termination of the Palestine Mandate gave the Arabs of Palestine the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination.
In 1946, leaders of the Zionist movement in the US sought the postponement of a determination of the application by Transjordan for United Nations membership until the status of Mandate Palestine as a whole was determined.[74] However, at its final session the League of Nations recognized the independence of Transjordan, with the agreement of Britain.
The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which was formed to recommend a solution to Britain's dilemma in Palestine, subsequently reported that the proposed Arab state would not be economically viable. The report indicated that the Arab state would be forced to call for financial assistance "from international institutions in the way of loans for expansion of education, public health and other vital social services of a non-self-supporting nature." A technical note from the Secretariat explained that without some redistribution of customs from the Jewish state, Arab Palestine would not be economically viable. The Committee was satisfied that the proposed Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem would be viable.[75]
Jewish leaders including Nahum Goldmann, Rabbi Abba Silver, Moshe Shertok, and David Ben Gurion proposed in 1946 to US officials a union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan.[76] In December 1948 the Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine.[77] The United States subsequently extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949.[62] The 1950 State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the U.S. had privately advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that it had approved the action, and that "it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people."[78] The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the-bulk of the refugees located there.[79]
The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan proposed a division of Mandate Palestine between an Arab and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem and the surrounding area to be a corpus separatum under a special international regime. The regions allotted to the proposed Arab state included what would become the Gaza Strip and almost all of what would become the West Bank, as well as other areas.
The Partition Plan was passed by the UN General Assembly on November 1947. The Partition Plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by the Arab leaders. The Arab League threatened to take military measures to prevent the partition of Palestine and to ensure the national rights of the Palestinian Arab population. One day before the expiration of the British Mandate for Palestine, on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence within the borders of the Jewish State set out in the Partition Plan. U.S. President Harry Truman recognized the State of Israel de facto the following day. The Arab countries declared war on the newly formed State of Israel heralding the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
After the war, which Palestinians call the Catastrophe, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area.
In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a memorandum of conversation held on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation: Mr. Rifai asked when the United States was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan. Mr. Rockwell explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of the United States to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union.[54]
The U.S. advised the Arab states that the U.S. attitude regarding Israel had been clearly stated in the UN by Dr. Jessup on November 20, 1949. He said that the U.S. supported Israeli claims to the boundaries set forth in the UN General Assembly resolution. However, the US believed that if Israel sought to retain additional territory in Palestine it should give the Arabs other territory as compensation.[80] The Israelis agreed that the boundaries were negotiable, but did not agree to the principle of compensation as a precondition. Mr. Eban stressed that it was undesirable to undermine what had already been accomplished by the armistice agreements, and maintained that Israel held no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas had been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as had the occupation of the territory in Palestine held by the Arab states.[81]
[edit] The Crisis of 1967
In November 1966, the Israeli forces raided Jordan and the West Bank village of Samu in response to several attacks. U.S. National Security Council staffer Robert Komer sent word to Prime Minister Eshkol "that Israel was 'going too far' in striking Jordan and had better lay off". He told Israeli Ambassador Harmon that Israel had put in jeopardy the U.S. policy of promoting Arab-Israel stability. President Johnson's personal assistant, Walt Rostow, agreed and added that the U.S. had spent $500 million to shore up Jordan as a stabilizing factor on Israel's longest border.[82]
On June 9, 1967 Foreign Minister Eban assured U.S. Ambassador Goldberg that Israel was not seeking territorial aggrandizement and had no "colonial" aspirations.[83] Secretary Rusk stressed to Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it gave Jordan some special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as Jordanian territory.[84]
On November 3, 1967 U.S. Ambassador Goldberg, accompanied by Mr. Sisco and Mr. Pedersen, called on King Hussein of Jordan. Goldberg said the U.S. was committed to the principle of political independence and territorial integrity and was ready to reaffirm it bilaterally and publicly in the Security Council resolution. According to Goldberg, the US believed in territorial integrity, withdrawal, and recognition of secure boundaries. Goldberg said the Principle of territorial integrity has two important sub-principles, there must be a withdrawal to recognized and secure frontiers for all countries, not necessarily the old armistice lines, and there must be mutuality in adjustments.[85]
Walt Rostow advised President Johnson, that Secretary Rusk had explained to Mr Eban that U.S. support for secure permanent frontiers doesn't mean we support territorial changes.[86] The record of a meeting between Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow and Israeli Ambassador Harmon stated that Rostow made clear the US view that there should be movement from General Armistice Agreements to conditions of peace and that this would involve some adjustments of Armistice lines as foreseen in the Armistice Agreements. Rostow told Harmon that he had already stressed to Foreign Minister Eban that the US expected the thrust of the settlement would be toward security and demilitarization arrangements rather than toward major changes in the Armistice lines. Harmon said the Israeli position was that Jerusalem should be an open city under unified administration but that the Jordanian interest in Jerusalem could be met through arrangements including "sovereignty". Rostow said the US government assumed (and Harman confirmed) that despite public statements to the contrary, the Government of Israel position on Jerusalem was that which Eban, Harman, and Evron had given several times, that Jerusalem was negotiable.[87]
Ambassador Goldberg briefed King Hussein on US assurances regarding territorial integrity. Goldberg said the US did not view Jordan as a country that consisted only of the East Bank, and that the US was prepared to support a return of the West Bank to Jordan with minor boundary rectifications. The US would use its influence to obtain compensation to Jordan for any territory it would be required to give up. Finally, although as a matter of policy the US did not agree with Jordan's position on Jerusalem, nor with the Israeli position on Jerusalem, the US was prepared to use its influence to obtain for Jordan a role in Jerusalem.[88] Secretary Rusk advised President Johnson that he confirmed Golberg's pledge regarding territorial integrity to King Hussein.[89]
During a subsequent meeting between President Johnson, King Hussein, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Hussein said the phraseology of the resolution calling for withdrawal from occupied territories could be interpreted to mean that the Egyptians should withdraw from Gaza and the Jordanians should withdraw from the West Bank. He said this possibility was evident from a speech given by Prime Minister Eshkol in which it had been claimed that both Gaza and the West Bank had been "occupied territory". The President agreed, and promised he would talk to Ambassador Goldberg about inserting Israel in that clause. Ambassador Goldberg told King Hussein that after taking into account legitimate Arab concerns and suggestions, the US would be willing to add the word "Israeli" before "Armed Forces" in first operative paragraph.[90]
In a speech delivered on September 1, 1982 U.S. President Ronald Reagan called for a settlement freeze and continued to support full Palestinian autonomy in political union with Jordan. He also said that "It is the United States' position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza."[91]
After the events of Black September in Jordan, the rift between the Palestinian leadership and the Kingdom of Jordan continued to widen. The Arab League affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and called on all the Arab states, including Jordan, to undertake to defend Palestinian national unity and not to interfere in internal Palestinian affairs. The Arab League also 'affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.' King Ḥussein dissolved the Jordanian parliament. Half of its members had been West Bank representatives. He renounced Jordanian claims to the West Bank, and allowed the PLO to assume responsibility as the Provisional Government of Palestine. The Kingdom of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria no longer act as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, or their territory.[92]
[edit] Plans to declare a Palestinian state prior to 1988
Declassified diplomatic documents reveal that in 1974, on the eve of the UN debate that granted the PLO an observer status, some parts of the PLO leadership were considering to proclaim the formation of a Palestinian government in exile at some point.[93] This plan, however, was not carried out.
[edit] 1988 Declaration
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence was approved by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in Algiers on November 15, 1988, by a vote of 253 in favour 46 against and 10 abstentions. It was read by Yasser Arafat at the closing session of the 19th PNC to a standing ovation.[8] Upon completing the reading of the declaration, Arafat, as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization assumed the title of "President of Palestine."[22]
Referring to "the historical injustice inflicted on the Palestinian Arab people resulting in their dispersion and depriving them of their right to self-determination," the declaration recalled the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 as supporting the rights of Palestinians and Palestine. The declaration then proclaims a "State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem".[94][95] The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified. The population of the state was referred to by the statement: "The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be". The state was defined as an Arab country by the statement: "The State of Palestine is an Arab state, an integral and indivisible part of the Arab nation". The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[96] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[95] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[97] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[98][99] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.[100][101]
As a result of the declaration, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) convened, inviting Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO to give an address. An UNGA resolution was adopted "acknowledging the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988," and it was further decided that "the designation 'Palestine' should be used in place of the designation 'Palestine Liberation Organization' in the United Nations system." One hundred and four states voted for this resolution, forty-four abstained, and two – the United States and Israel – voted against.[102] By mid-December, 75 states had recognized Palestine, rising to 89 states by February 1989.[103]
By the 1988 declaration, the PNC empowered its central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and called upon its executive committee to perform the duties of the government-in-exile until its establishment.[8]
[edit] Palestinian Authority
Under the terms of the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the PLO, the latter assumed control over the Jericho area of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on 17 May 1994. On September 28, 1995, following the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israeli military forces withdrew from the West Bank towns of Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho, Jenin, Tulkarem, Qalqilya and Bethlehem. In December 1995, the PLO also assumed responsibility for civil administration in 17 areas in Hebron.[104] While the PLO assumed these responsibilities as a result of Oslo, a new temporary interim administrative body was set up as a result of the Accords to carry out these functions on the ground: the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).
An analysis outlining the relationship between the PLO, the PNA (or PA), Palestine and Israel in light of the interim arrangements set out in the Oslo Accords begins by stating that, "Palestine may best be described as a transitional association between the PA and the PLO." It goes on to explain that this transitional association accords the PA responsibility for local government and the PLO responsibility for representation of the Palestinian people in the international arena, while prohibiting it from concluding international agreements that affect the status of the occupied territories. This situation is said to be accepted by the Palestinian population insofar as it is viewed as a temporary arrangement.[105]
In March 2008 it was reported that the PA was working to increase the number of countries that recognize Palestine and that a PA representative had signed a bilateral agreement between the State of Palestine and Costa Rica.[106] A recent Al-Haq position paper said the reality is that the PA has entered into various agreements with international organizations and states. These instances of foreign relations undertaken by the PA signify that the Interim Agreement is part of a larger on-going peace process, and that the restrictions on the foreign policy operations of the PA conflict with the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, now a norm with a nature of jus cogens, which includes a right to engage in international relations with other peoples.[107]
[edit] Legal status
There are a wide variety of views regarding the status of the State of Palestine, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars. The existence of a state of Palestine, although controversial, is nonetheless a reality in the opinions of the many states that have established bilateral diplomatic relations.[108][109][110][111] A number of publicists and legal experts have noted that the majority of other states have legally recognized the State of Palestine.
[edit] Planned 2011 UN Recognition Vote
After two years of impasse regarding the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Palestinian Authority is planning to bring the case of recognition before the UN in September of 2011 if the Israelis do not offer a far-reaching settlement.[112] The UN issued a report lauding the Palestinian Authority, describing "aspects of its administration as sufficient for an independent state."[113]
[edit] Consequences of the occupation
After 1967, a number of legal arguments were advanced which dismissed the right of Palestinians to self-determination and statehood. They generally proposed that Palestine was a land void of a legitimate sovereign and supported Israeli claims to the remaining territory of the Palestine Mandate.[114][115] Historian and journalist, Gershom Gorenberg, says that outside of the pro-settlement community in Israel, these positions are considered quirky. He says that, while the Israeli government has used them for PR purposes abroad, it takes entirely different positions when arguing real legal cases before the Israeli Supreme Court. In 2005 Israel decided to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank. Gorenberg notes, the government's decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by settlers, and the government won the case by noting the settlements were in territory whose legal status was that of 'belligerent territory'. The government argued that the settlers should have known the settlements were only temporary.[116]
Most UN member states questioned the claim that Israel held better title to the land than the inhabitants, and stressed that statehood was an inalienable right of the Palestinian people.[117] Legal experts, like David John Ball, concluded that "the Palestinians, based on the principles of self-determination and the power of the U.N., appear to hold better title to the territory."[118] The International Court of Justice subsequently reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the prohibition under customary and conventional international law against acquisition of territory by war.
The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, cited a case involving Gaza and said that "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The legal representative of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation. His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation."[119]
The court said most Israelis do not have ownership of the land on which they built their houses and businesses in the territory "They acquired their rights from the military commander, or from persons acting on his behalf. Neither the military commander nor those acting on his behalf are owners of the property, and they cannot transfer rights better than those they have. To the extent that the Israelis built their homes and assets on land which is not private ('state land'), that land is not owned by the military commander. His authority is defined in regulation 55 of The Hague Regulations. . . . The State of Israel acts . . . as the administrator of the state property and as usufructuary of it."[119]
[edit] The Declaration and the Act of State Doctrine
Many states have recognized the State of Palestine since 1988. Under the principles of customary international law, when a government is recognized by another government, recognition is retroactive in effect, and validates all the actions and conduct of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence.[120]
Stephen Talmon notes that many countries have a formal policy of recognizing states, not their governments. In practice, they usually make no formal declarations regarding recognition. He cites several examples including a memorandum on US recognition policy and practice, dated 25 September 1981 which said that recognition would be implied by the US Government's dealings with the new government.[121] Many countries have expressed their intention to enter into relations with the State of Palestine. The United States formally recognized the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a country in 1997 at the request of the Palestinian Authority. At that time it asked the public to take notice of that fact through announcements it placed in the Federal Register.[122] The USAID West Bank/Gaza,[123] has been tasked with "state-building" projects in the areas of democracy, governance, resources, and infrastructure. Part of the USAID mission is to "provide flexible and discrete support for implementation of the Quartet Road Map",[124] an internationally backed plan which calls for the progressive development of a viable Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza. The EU has announced similar external relations programs with the Palestinian Authority.[125]
The view of the European states, which did not extend full recognition was expressed by French President François Mitterrand who stated: "Many European countries are not ready to recognize a Palestine state. Others think that between recognition and non-recognition there are significant degrees; I am among these."[102] But, after the PLO recognized the state of Israel, Mitterrand welcomed the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, in Paris, in May 1989.[126]
[edit] Decisions of international and national tribunals
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[28]
[edit] State succession
A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[127] Judge Higgins explained that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State."[128] The Court said that specific guarantees regarding freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1878) had been preserved under the terms of the Palestine Mandate and a chapter of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.[129]
Article 62 (LXII) of the Treaty of Berlin, 13 July 1878[130] dealt with religious freedom and civil and political rights in all parts of the Ottoman Empire.[131] The guarantees have frequently been referred to as "religious rights" or "minority rights". However, the guarantees included a prohibition against discrimination in civil and political matters. Difference of religion could not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, "in any locality whatsoever."
The resolution of the San Remo Conference contained a safeguarding clause for all of those rights. The conference accepted the terms of the Mandate with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal a legal undertaking by the Mandatory Power that it would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.[132] The draft mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine, and all of the post-war peace treaties contained clauses for the protection of minorities. The mandates invoked the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the event of any disputes.[133]
Article 28 of the Mandate required that those rights be safeguarded in perpetuity, under international guarantee.[127] The General Assembly's Plan for the Future Government of Palestine placed those rights under UN protection as part of a minority protection plan.[134] It required that they be acknowledged in a Declaration, embodied in the fundamental laws of the states, and in their Constitutions. The partition plan also contained provisions that bound the new states to international agreements and conventions to which Palestine had become a party and held them responsible for its financial obligations.[135] The Declarations of the Independent State of Israel and the Independent State of Palestine acknowledged the protected rights and were accepted as being in line with UN resolution 181(II).[136]
[edit] Opinions of officials and legal scholars
Jacob Robinson was a legal advisor to the United Nations delegation of the Jewish Agency for Palestine during the special session of the General Assembly in 1947.[137] He advised the Zionist Executive that the provisional states had come into existence as a result of the resolution of November 29, 1947.[138]
L.C. Green explained that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government."[139]
Alex Takkenberg writes that while "[...] there is no doubt that the entity 'Palestine' should be considered a state in statu nascendi and although it is increasingly likely that the ongoing peace process will eventually culminate in the establishment of a Palestinian state, it is premature to conclude that statehood, as defined by international law, is at present (spring 1997) firmly established."[140] Referring to the four criteria of statehood, as outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention – that is, a permanent population, a defined territory, government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states – Takkenberg states that the entity known as Palestine does not fully satisfy this criteria.[140]
Conversely John V. Whitbeck, who served as an advisor to the Palestinian negotiation team during negotiations with Israel, writes that "[...] the State of Palestine already exists," and that when, "Judged by these customary criteria [those of the Montevideo Convention], the State of Palestine is on at least as firm a legal footing as the State of Israel." He continues: "The weak link in Palestine's claim to already exist as a state was, until recently, the fourth criterion, "effective control. [...] Yet a Palestinian executive and legislature, democratically elected with the enthusiastic approval of the international community, now exercises 'effective control' over a portion of Palestinian territory in which the great majority of the state's population lives. It can no longer be seriously argued that Palestine's claim to exist falls at the fourth and final hurdle."[141]
For John Quigley Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.[142] Noting that Palestine under the Mandate entered into bilateral treaties, including one with Great Britain, the Mandatory power, he cites this as an example of its "sovereignty" at that time. He also notes the corollary of the Stimson Doctrine and the customary prohibition on the use of force contained in the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, "[a]n entity does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all of its territory has been occupied by a foreign power".[102]
Robert Weston Ash says that Quigley’s analysis of the declaration that the Palestinian Authority provided to the International Criminal Court failed to explain a number of key issues. He says the “Palestinian people” to whom sovereignty reverted upon the departure of the British would have included both Jews and Arabs. He suggests that establishes a colorable Jewish —as well as Arab— claim to all of Palestine which tends to refute Professor Quigley’s contention that there are no other claimants to that territory. Ash says there are segments of Israeli society that continue to view “Judea and Samaria” as areas promised to the Jews by the Balfour Declaration and says that the Geneva Convention is not applicable to Israel's presence in those territories. He cites Yehuda Blum's "Missing Reversioner" and Eugene Rostow's related claim that “The right of the Jewish people to settle in Palestine has never been terminated for the West Bank.”[143] Quigley has said that the International Court of Justice findings in the "Wall" case regarding the applicability of the Geneva Convention discredited once and for all, as a legal matter, the ‘missing reversioner’ argument.[144] The International Criminal Court has published a summary of arguments which says that some submissions consider that it is clear that the Palestinian National Authority cannot be regarded as a ‘State’, and that some submit that Palestine is recognized as a State by many States and many institutions. The Court says that a conclusive determination on Palestine's declaration will have to be made by the judges at an appropriate moment.[145][146]
Disputes have arisen as a result of the Conflict of laws between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Judgments originating in Israeli Courts are not directly enforceable in the Courts of the Palestinian Authority.[147] The District Court of Israel ruled that the Palestinian Authority satisfied the criteria to be legally treated as a sovereign state[148] The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel which ruled that the Palestinian Authority cannot be defined as a foreign state, since recognizing states is an exclusive authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Supreme Court held that the Palestinian Authority can be granted state immunity on an ad hoc basis when it is warranted by the circumstances.[149] The Knesset responded to the willingness of the judges to engage in examination of the notion of ‘statehood for the purpose of state immunity’ by adopting a measure that makes it possible to grant sovereign immunity to a ‘political entity that is not a state’ as part of the 2008 Foreign States Immunity Law, Art. 20.[150]
Stefan Talmon notes that "In international law it is true that one generally recognizes the Government which exercises effective control over a territory. But this is not an absolute rule without exceptions."[151] James Crawford notes that despite its prevalence, and inclusion in the statehood criteria found in the Montevideo Convention, effectiveness is not the sole or even the critical criterion for statehood. He cites several examples of annexations and governments that have been recognized despite their lack of a territorial foothold.[152] Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently expressed a willingness to recognize the State of Palestine if it will agree to forgo taking effective control of its airspace, military defense, and not enter into alliances with Israel's enemies.[153]
In November 2009, Palestinian officials were reported to be preparing the ground for asking for recognition of a Palestinian State from the Security Council. The state was envisioned to be based on the 1967 Green Line as an international border with Israel and East Jerusalem as its capital. The plan was reported to have support from Arab states, Russia and the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon.[154] The Secretary General said "Today, the State of Israel exists, but the State of Palestine does not." "It is vital that a sovereign State of Palestine is achieved". "This should be on the basis of the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps and a just and agreed solution to the refugee issue."[155] On 29 January 2010, the representative of Palestine deposited a copy of a letter submitted by Prime Minister Fayyad with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The letter reported on the decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas, "President of the State of Palestine", concerning the formation of an independent commission to follow up on the Goldstone report in compliance with General Assembly resolution 64/10 of 5 November 2009.[156]
Paul De Waart says that the Quartet, particularly the United States, as well as western states, do not consider Palestine to be a state as yet. In their view the statehood of Palestine will be the result of bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. He says they have overlooked that under international law it is not anymore a question of creating but of recognizing the State of Palestine.[157]
Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidoth said the Palestinians have already unilaterally declared statehood, and they did not need to do it again. "Recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state."[158]
President Abbas said that the State of Palestine was already in existence and that the current battle is to have the state's border recognized.[159] Jerome Segal wrote about Salam Fayyad's plan for Palestinian statehood. He said lest anyone believe that the 1988 declaration is ancient history, they should read the new Fayyad plan with more care. It cites the 1988 declaration four times, identifying it as having articulated "the foundations of the Palestinian state."[160]
In September 2010 the World Bank released a report which found the Palestinian Authority "well-positioned to establish a state" at any point in the near future. The report highlighted, however, that unless private-sector growth in the Palestinian economy was stimulated, a Palestinian state would remain donor dependent.[161]
[edit] Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter
The UN Charter protects the territorial integrity or political independence of any state from the threat or use of force. Philip Jessup served as a representative of the United States to the United Nations and as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:
[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law."[162]
After Operation Cast Lead, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki said that he and Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan had provided proof to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that Palestine had been extended legal recognition as a State by 67 other countries, and had bilateral agreements with States in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe .[163] The General Assembly endorsed the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict which also called for war crimes investigations.[164]
John Dugard has served as Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and as a Special Rapporteur for both the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the International Law Commission. He recently wrote that the majority of states recognize the State of Palestine, and that it was only necessary that it be considered a State for the purposes of the Rome Statute for the case to be accepted by the International Criminal Court.[111]
Thomas Grant says that the General Assembly "Definition of Aggression", contained in UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974) provides that any entity (even an illegal one like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) which is the target of aggression may be legally termed a State – without regard to recognition or UN membership – and benefit from the protections contained in article 2(4) of the UN Charter regarding the use of force or the threat of force by other states.[165] The UN Treaty Organization says that portions of the General Assembly's definition have been judged to be declarative of customary international law by the International Court of Justice.[166]
[edit] Permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation
On 21 December 2009 the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed the permanent sovereignty over their natural resources for the Palestinian people and Arab population in the Israeli-occupied territories, including East Jerusalem,[167] as a matter of international law. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 165 in favor to 8 against, with 7 abstentions.[168] The right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is a "valid norm of international law."[169] Franz Perrez wrote that "The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is a fundamental principle of contemporary international law. It emerged in the 1950s during the process of decolonization as a basic constituent of the right to self-determination and an essential and inherent element of state sovereignty."[170]
The International Court of Justice noted that a number of agreements have been signed since 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and that those agreements required Israel to transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities exercised in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by its military authorities and civil administration. The Court said that Israel is under an obligation not to raise any obstacle to the exercise of such rights in those fields where competence has been transferred to Palestinian authorities.[171] Israel’s representative at the United Nations subsequently said that under agreements reached between the two sides, the Palestinian Authority already exercised jurisdiction over many natural resources, while interim cooperation and arrangements were in place for others.[172]
[edit] Israeli response
In response to the proposed Palestinian declaration, Israel began considering whether to annex major Israeli settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley in response. The idea was raised by Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau during a Yisrael Beiteinu convention in Jerusalem. A rally was organized in the Knesset to promote annexing the settlements, with the feature speakers being MKs Danny Danon and Yuli Edelstein. Top right-wing academics and formr Foreign Minister Moshe Arens were also expected to speak. MK Danon began preparing two bills, one of them annexing Israeli settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley, and the other one to repeal the Oslo Accords.[173]
[edit] International recognition and foreign relations
Representation of the State of Palestine is performed by the Palestine Liberation Organization. In states that recognise the State of Palestine it maintains embassies. The Palestine Liberation Organization is represented in various international organizations as member, associate or observer. Because of inconclusiveness in sources[174] in some cases it is impossible to distinguish whether the participation is executed by the PLO as representative of the State of Palestine, by the PLO as a non-state entity or by the PNA.
[edit] Population
 | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. |
[edit] Exodus
| This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. |
No comments:
Post a Comment