1188 Weekly News + The Non-Existent Palestine

The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (the prevailing legal standard),requires that a “state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

In Gaza, Hamas controls a permanent population in a defined territory (i.e., Gaza within the armistice lines of 1949). Gaza has a functioning government (of sorts), and has international relations with a large number of states. Gaza alone is not and will never be on the table for statehood. Hamas wants all of Israel, not just tiny Gaza.

The Fatah-controlled West Bank could also meet the legal requirements for statehood, and it would have more international support. It has a functioning government in the Palestinian Authority (PA), a permanent population, and international relations with a very large number of states. It also controls a defined territory. Like Gaza, the West Bank alone is not and will never be on the table for statehood. It, too, is not enough.

The big problem here is that a “current Palestinian entity” which has been and will be considered for statehood doesn’t exist and fails to meet any of the requirements for statehood. Who would emerge as president is up for grabs. Despite the so-called unity agreements that have surfaced over the years, Hamas and Fatah haven’t gotten beyond their differences. Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas has presented himself as the president of the Palestine that has previously requested statehood at the U.N., but Hamas has had the law on its side in refusing to recognize him as President. So much for having a functioning government.

To make matter worse, the Palestinian entity that previously requested statehood would have had a legislature that had never met. Since being elected on Jan. 25, 2006, (for a term of four years), the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) has yet to enact a single law, issue a single appointment, of conduct a single meeting. Abbas has claimed that it is his right as president to legislate laws and decisions by decree.

Finally, the Palestine the General Assembly will likely recognize someday will probably be unable to hold presidential or legislative elections as required by Article 47 of its Basic Law simply because the rival Palestinian rulers, each for their own reasons, will not allow them to happen.

So there you have it. The General Assembly is likely to try again to create an imaginary state that has two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution that is being 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. Add to this the continued unwillingness of any of the “Palestinian” factions to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and the never-ending promotion of the myth of Israeli occupation. What could possibly go wrong?