Is Palestine now a state?
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pose for photos at the United Nations Nov. 28, 2012, in New York City. / Getty
UNITED NATIONS The United Nations General Assembly voted Thursday, by an impressive margin, to upgrade Palestine from its status as an "Observer Entity" to an "Observer State," a change greeted by celebration in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and with an unusual display of emotion at U.N. Headquarters -- a Palestinian flag unfurled on the Assembly floor.
But what exactly did the Palestinians really gain at the world body? The resolution referred to the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine."
- For Palestinians, statehood in name only
- U.N. votes to label Palestine a state
- Video: Palestinians celebrate U.N. vote
So, is Palestine now a State?
Here's what the U.N.'s own charter, and international law have to say on the matter:
"The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government," according to the United Nations.
A state may be considered a state by other countries, but not be a member of the U.N. -- as is the case with the Holy See and Kosovo, for example. The United States recognizes 195 states, whereas there are only 193 members of the U.N.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice made the U.S. government's stance on the Palestinians abundantly clear after Friday's vote, telling the assembly: "This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state."
It's also worth mentioning that U.N. membership does not necessarily mean independent statehood. India was a member of the U.N. in 1945, two years before it became independent from Britain.
International law bases recognition of a state on the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which declares that "a State as a person of international law should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other States."
A subsequent opinion by the World Court in 1948 spelled out five additional criteria for states seeking full United Nations membership:
A candidate must be: (1) a State; (2) peace-loving; (3) must accept the obligations of the Charter; (4) must be able to carry out these obligations; (5) must be willing to do so.
When the Security Council -- which must recommend a country for membership to the wider U.N. -- considered the Palestinians application for full membership last year, objections were raised over the "peace loving" provision, and the lack of effective governmental control over the Gaza Strip by the Palestinian Authority. In the end, the Council did not recommend full membership.
So the Security Council held the Palestinians up to statehood criteria and decided the threshold had not been reached. But even that did not determine whether or not Palestine is recognized as a country. The United Nations cannot do that.
With its new status as an official "observer state," Palestine will be able to apply to join specialized U.N. agencies and international organizations.
There are also new untested waters, such as whether or not the "statehood" status at the U.N. will give the Palestinians the right of self defense under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.
In the end, the Resolution does not change the Palestinians lives on the ground, and it does not "recognize" Palestine as a state. Most important, the Resolution states the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process. That remains the key, according to both Israel and the Palestinian authority, to a real two-state solution.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- British flower show in full bloom 16 Photos
- Hezbollah suffers heavy losses fighting inside Syria
- Some Swedish youth riot over police shooting death
- Iran hangs alleged U.S., Israeli spies 78 Comments
- Russia shows accused U.S. spy heading home
- Boat hijack stokes tension between N. Korea, China
- Bungled bank heist in Israel leaves gunman, 4 more dead
- N. Korea fires 6th projectile into sea
Thank you.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2989th meeting on 24 May 1991
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),
Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,
1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return of all those deported;
3. Decides to keep the situation under review.
*** Resolution 672 (1990) - BINDING
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on
12 October 1990
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),
Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legiti-mate political rights of the Palestinian people,
Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,
1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the in-jury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;
2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;
3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.
24th April 2012 - UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:
"I strongly condemn the Israeli government's decision yesterday to turn three illegal outposts in the West Bank into settlements. I urged the Israeli government in my statement on 5 April to remove - not legalise - outposts across the West Bank".
Furthermore, I would like to refer you to specific serious concerns raised by the International Court of Justice (2004) - with relevance to the 'security barrier' - which was viewed with alarm by the international community. Incidentally the reference to the illegality of settle-ments in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was also reinforced when the International Court of Justice also found the following (indeed the EU supported the UN vote pertaining to the 'security barrier'):
* That the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* The illegality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this context, the court stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by Israel, that international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied territory, along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation barrier violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The court mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against invasion of privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to work, to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are enshrined in Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
An interesting article but it omitted some key points.
* The UN view of the Palestinian Territories can be seen at the following URL: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/OCHA_IsrSettlementPolicies.pdf.
* The West Bank and East Jerusalem is occupied Palestine (recognised by 132 nations in the world including India, China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Iceland).
* Palestine is officially a non-member STATE of the UN. The UN Secretary General and the Vatican Church welcomed this.
* Palestine is still illegally held and sadly Israel has ignored the ruling of the International Court of Justice (subsequently supported by the UN and EU) with respect to the "separation barrier". This "wall" is 3 times the length of the Berlin Wall.
* UNESCO's recognition of Palestine last year was supported by France, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, Greece and other European nations. Please also see UNSC Resolution 478 concerning Jerusalem. The 4th Geneva Convention is applicable to all the Palestinian Territories.
* International law and UN Resolutions (over which there are over 150) are ignored by Israel.
Yours sincerely
Anthony
*** UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 - BINDING
The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB
Your comment is ill-informed and heavily due no doubt to the failure to consider the documents and events left out of the timeline which I have explicitly detailed.
Those documents refer to decisions made after the conclusion of World War 1 when large parts of the Ottoman Empire were captured by the Allied Powers from Turkey after 400 years of Ottoman occupation and rule.
99.99% of those territories were assigned for Arab self-determination and 0.01% for Jewish self determination. The failure of the Arabs to accept these decisions continues to be the major stumbling block to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict in 2012
The word "reconstitute" was the word used in the Mandate for Palestine which was unanimously adopted by all 51 member states of the League of Nations.
I cannot blame you for apparently not knowing that - especially if you are relying on the timeline to influence your opinion.
The sooner the timeline is amended so that people might be properly informed - the better.
Come on CBS news. Just do it - and soon.
Are you interested in a full and factual timeline or some misleading and deceptive timeline as currently is set out?
The Mandate for Palestine is a definitive document in the Jewish claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home - as are the other documents I enumerated.
If you have any other documents to add in the timeline then please feel free to urge CBS to do so,
No logic, no point, just blind hatred. It ignores facts that refute it's point, only wishy-washy conjecture that "support" its stance are allowed in discussion.
You can't have an intelligent discussion with someone who isn't.
1. 1920 San Remo Conference
2. 1920 Treaty of Sevres
3. 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
4. 1922 Note by the Secretary General of the League of Nations declaring as inapplicable the Jewish National Home provisions of the Mandate in Transjordan
5. 1937 Peel Commission Recommendations
6. 1939 British White Paper
7. 1946 Article 80 United Nations Charter
Hope you are prepared to amend your timeline to include these critically important documents that led to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.
Quite frankly without their inclusion your timeline is deceptive and misleading.
This sentence: "How do you "reconstitute" something that hasn't existed for 3,000 years." clearly illustrates the motivation of this individual, which is nothing less than sheer hatred for the Jews.
Then : "theft of Palestine"...
Bigots attempt to twist things their way, and will not even consider any facts that go against their hatred.
Discussions become simple for them, because it's their way or the highway - no counter points are ever valid.
My advice: Don't waste your breath. This thing is just a mental simpleton, with no clue as to the long-term ramifications of its hateful stance.
SPINNER-OR-WINNER represents so many people who are entirely ignorant of the Jewish-Arab conflict because respectable websites like CBS News present false and misleading facts on the subject such as this "timeline".
Getting the timeline changed as I have indicated is a vital necessity.
CBS News stands condemned whilst it refuses to do so.
Do you agree?
A history of the conflict"
Well that's doable in less than a dozen words.
The State of Israel was vomited on the people of Palestine.
LOL!