Palestine Is A State - Fact Or Fiction?

[Published 6 March 2012]


Recognition of the existence of Palestine as a State was ostensibly given the international imprimatur on 31 October 2011 - when 107 countries voted to admit Palestine as the 195th member state of UNESCO.

Palestine’s admission to UNESCO rested upon Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution which states:

“Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.”

Palestine’s application would presumably have been vetted by UNESCO’s 58-member Executive Board - to make sure Palestine qualified as a state to entitle it to become a member of UNESCO - otherwise the application would have had to be ruled out of order.

Article II (2) above indeed makes clear that there had to be a recommendation by the Executive Board.

To try and find out how the Executive Board came to its conclusion - I asked UNESCO two questions - to which I received the following answers on 1 December 2011:

QUESTION: Did the Secretariat or any other division within UNESCO prepare a report on the status of “Palestine” to qualify as a “state” to be admitted to membership of UNESCO? If so could I please be sent a copy?

ANSWER:There was no document submitted to the General Conference by the Secretariat relating to the status of Palestine.

QUESTION:On what basis can Palestine qualify to be admitted as a member State of UNESCO when it does not possess the necessary qualifications to be recognized as a State in customary international law as codified in article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933?

ANSWER:This question would need to be addressed to the UNESCO Member States that voted in favor of admission.

Not satisfied with these answers - I wrote a further letter on 2 December 2011 drawing UNESCO’s attention to the following:

Article II.2 of the Constitution requires “a recommendation of the Executive Board” as anecessary pre-condition for the admission of any states to UNESCO that are not members of the United Nations.

Can you supply a copy of the recommendation of the Executive Board to the General Conference to admit Palestine to membership of UNESCO and any reports that formed part of that recommendation or were considered by the Executive Board prior to making that recommendation.

There was no reply - only an impenetrable wall of silence erected by UNESCO ever since.

Now those of you who have read my many articles over the past 5 months know that I consider Palestine’s admission to UNESCO to be unconstitutional - being in breach of Article II (2) above.

I have unsuccessfully urged UNESCO to seek an advisory ruling from the International Court on the meaning of Article II (2) and on other clauses in the Constitution that appear to be inconsistent with it.

UNESCO can approach the Court to resolve these issues under Article XIV (2) of the Constitution which states:

“Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation of this Constitution shall be referred for determination to the International Court of Justice or to an arbitral tribunal, as the General Conference may determine under its Rules of Procedure”

Not one of the 194 UNESCO member states seems remotely interested in pursuing this option. All have apparently accepted the fact that Palestine is a State.

No member State has objected to the flag of Palestine flying above UNESCO headquarters in Paris alongside their State’s respective flags.

Under Article II (7) - each Member State is entitled to appoint a Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.

On 23 January 2012 - Mr. Elias Wadih Sanbar was appointed Permanent Delegate of the member state of Palestine - without demur or objection from any of the other member states.

Given the apparent acceptance of Palestine as a state on an equal par with all the other 194 member states of UNESCO - my questions to all of them are:

1. Why is the world not now celebrating the realisation of the two-state solution on 31 October 2011 and an end to the long road to Palestinian statehood begun in 1993 with the Oslo Accords?

2. When will the state of Palestine start opening its doors to welcome those Palestinian Arabs that have been left to fester in refugee camps in neighbouring Arab states for the last 64 years?

3. When will UNWRA be disbanded - now that the State of Palestine exists?

4. Why is the UN still carrying the following outdated material on its website:
“In late April the Security Council is due to hold its quarterly open debate on the Middle East. The focus of discussion will likely be whether the Quartet has been able to achieve sufficient impetus to break the stalemate in the Israel/Palestine peace process.

The Quartet—comprising the EU, Russia, the UN and the US—will next meet on 11 April in Washington, DC.”

Why waste the Security Council’s time with another debate on efforts to break the stalemate in the Middle East - when the stalemate was broken on 31 October 2011?

Isn’t it time the Quartet disbanded and announced the cancellation of its next meeting set for 11 April 2012? Has it any function now - following international recognition by the 194 member states of UNESCO that Palestine is a State?

Not one of the 195 member states of UNESCO ( including Palestine itself) can pinpoint the State of Palestine on a map or the boundaries which it encompasses. This surely is testimony to the mess that the world has landed itself in because it has chosen to ignore international law and UNESCO’s Constitution.

The world will have to live with its flight into fantasy and folly and bear the consequences of its unlawful decision.

You can’t be half pregnant - nor can you be half a state. If you call yourself a State - represent yourself as a State when seeking entry to world organizations - and get accepted on the basis of being a State - then you are a State.

Time to focus now on the claims of other groups with long standing demands for self determination - such as the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques and the Corsicans.

They should now all apply to join UNESCO - using Palestine as the precedent - confident in the knowledge that if UNESCO can miraculously turn fiction into fact by recognizing “Palestine” as a “State” - it can make the aspirations of these other long suffering people become a similar reality.

What is good for the goose must surely be good enough for the gander

Palestine - Unleashing The Self-Determination Genie

[Published 17 June 2011]


It is hard to believe that the possibility of the Palestinians successfully approaching the UN in September and obtaining “a license to statehood“ is even being seriously contemplated.

The Palestinians have never comprised a separate and unique group in recorded history.

Their defining Constitution - the PLO Charter - which only came into operation in 1964 makes this quite clear in Article 1 which states:

“Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.“

Palestinians are Arabs - part of the Arab nation currently comprising 21 independent States. The vast majority of Arabs only came to live in Palestine in the 20th century at the same time as the country was being opened up and developed by the return of the Jews.

Article 5 again confirms the Arab identity of the Palestinians by declaring:

“The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian."

Jews and non-Arab Christians residing in Palestine in or after 1947 are excluded. This smacks of apartheid and racism at its worst - which the international community accepts without a whimper.

Any approach to the UN in September will seek to have the UN recognize a Palestinian State in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza - which runs counter to the provisions of Article 2 of the PLO Charter which affirms:

“Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

British Mandatory Palestine comprised:

1. Jordan - almost 77% of Palestine
2. Israel - about 17% of Palestine and
3. Gaza and the West Bank - the remaining 6% of Palestine

Would the Palestinian Authority be prepared to forgo its claim to Jordan and Israel as a quid pro quo for UN recognition? I doubt it.

The fiction that constitutes the Palestinian identity is revealed in Article 4 of the PLO Charter:

“The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children.”

Certainly at the time the Mandate for Palestine was created in 1922 by the 51 nations comprising the League of Nations - no Palestinian identity rated a mention. The Preamble to the Mandate document spoke of :

“ … the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine .."

The censuses undertaken by the Turkish and English authorities in Palestine had always been based on counting the numbers of Jews, Moslems and Christians. The idea of a separate Palestinian identity never arose.

In 1946 Transjordan (now Jordan) was granted its independence by Great Britain. No attempt was made to define its Arab residents as Palestinians. They were called Trans-Jordanians and later Jordanians - even though that territory comprised almost four fifths of Palestine and the entire population comprised Arab nationals residing in Palestine at the time.

In 1947 the UN Partition Plan proposed for Palestine spoke of dividing the remaining 23% of the territory of the Mandate into a Jewish State and an Arab State - not a Palestinian State.

After the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza had been occupied by the invading armies of Jordan and Egypt from 1948-1967 - the Palestinian Arabs chose to unify the West Bank and East Jerusalem with Jordan in 1950. West Bank and East Jerusalem Arabs became Jordanian citizens. Any claim to a separate Palestinian identity was still well and truly hidden from sight. The State they now demand could have been created at any time during those 19 years when not one Jew lived there after all had been driven out during the 1948 War.

1964 really marked the starting point for a claimed Palestinian identity as defined in the PLO Charter. A very successful campaign undertaken during the last 47 years has seen this identity internationally deserving of recognition as a distinct separate and national group.

But what does this say for long standing authentic national and secessionist movements such as the Kurds, the Tibetans, the Chechens, and the Basques?

If the road to self-determination can be successfully pursued through the UN by the Palestinian Arabs on what is at best a contrived and artificial identity - then how can the UN possibly refuse to grant similar recognition to these other far more credentialed and long standing peoples with their own history, culture and language going back centuries and even into antiquity?

If the Palestinian Arabs can have a state recognized by the UN - what arguments can possibly justify the UN refusing to accord the same status and recognition to these other groups ?

In the case of Palestine the legal conditions required for the declaration of a Palestinian State - as laid down in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - are not capable of being met unless first agreed in direct face to face negotiations with Israel.

A similar obstacle impedes the many other nationalist and secessionist movements around the world and makes their independence or breakaway conditional on agreements being successfully negotiated with their host states.

The large number of these movements looking on with keen interest from the sidelines can be gauged from the following survey [http://www.jinsa.org/jinsa-reports/palestinian-un-vote-fraught-global-implications:

“There are 37 recognized and recognizable secessionist movements in Africa. There are 65 in Asia, including 13 in Burma, five in China (Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians among them). Russia straddles continents and faces five secessionist movements in Asian Russia and 13 more in European Russia, including Chechens. The rest of Europe has more than 50, including 18 in Italy and nine in Spain. France has four irredentist movements, four secessionist movements, five autonomist movements and several movements to change the borders of Departments. There is one each in Poland, the Netherlands, Romania and Switzerland. Parties in Greenland want to secede from Denmark and in Puerto Rico they want to secede from the United States - which also has American Indian, Southern and Texan movements to secede, as well as one in Manhattan and one in New York State. The Miskito Indians want to secede from Nicaragua and Chiapas from Mexico. French and British colonies in the Caribbean and Oceania have separatist movements.”

The UN needs to tread carefully to avoid unleashing the genie of self-determination by ignoring the well established principles of international law. This genie will have the capacity to wreak havoc in the conduct of the affairs of a large number of UN member states who will have their flanks exposed to similar demands.

As you sow - so shall you reap.

Palestine - Double-crossing Obama Signals Problems For Abbas

[Published 7 December 2010]


President Obama has been double-crossed by the extraordinary behaviour of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in seeking Brazil’s recognition of a Palestinian State “within the 1967 borders”.

A succeeding announcement by Argentina also recognizes a Palestinian state “within the 1967 borders” . Uruguay could be set to shortly follow suit.

In initially approaching Brazil for such recognition without advising Obama - Abbas could well have scuttled Obama’s further involvement in getting Israel and the PA to resume their stalled negotiations.

Abbas’s intemperate action could see the parties left to go their own ways after 17 years of failed American diplomacy to get even the most basic of understandings between Israel and the PA.

Argentina’s subsequent recognition is set to further exacerbate the growing crisis between America and the PA as a result of Abbas apparently deciding to abandon the American brokered negotiations..

Abbas’s letter to Brazil’s President Lula da Silva was written on 24 November - at precisely the time Obama was mulling over the incentives he was prepared to offer Israel to induce it to announce a three month building freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - thus enabling the PA to return to the negotiating table following its withdrawal from negotiations with Israel on 26 September.

Abbas made it clear in his letter to da Silva that the PA was not going to give Obama any further leeway the get the stalled negotiations resumed when he stated:

“The current situation in the Palestinian Territories shows a major escalation of Israeli actions. The Government of Israel refuses to stop its activities in the settlements. …Israel still defies the world and insists its colonization activities. This position hinders any possibility of reaching an agreement through negotiations and also creates a new reality on the ground, which prevents the two-state solution“

This statement amounted to a clear repudiation of any intention by the PA to give President Obama any more time to defuse the very issue that Abbas claimed was preventing his return to the negotiating table.

Abbas’s request to da Silva in such circumstances was clear and unambiguous:

“ .. we hope, our dear friend, that you will decide to take the initiative recognize the state of Palestine within the 1967 borders.”

Da Silva apparently was prepared to go even further and advised Abbas on 3 December:

“Brazil, through this letter, recognizes a Palestinian state on 1967 borders.“

There certainly is a great difference between the words “on” and “within”. But irrespective of which term was used by da Silva - Abbas’s request was a blatant attempt to undermine and influence the outcome of any eventual resumption of the stalled negotiations between the PA and Israel.

The border to be drawn between Israel and the new Arab state was critical to the successful conclusion of any such negotiations, Abbas in his letter to da Silva had indicated he was not prepared to move one meter from the position that had been maintained by the Palestine Liberation Organization for the last 43 years.

Abbas was perfectly entitled to jettison Obama and seek diplomatic support elsewhere. But it appears that in doing so he has shot himself in the foot. Any trust between Abbas and Obama must be severely undermined as a result of Abbas’s action in unilaterally seeking Brazilian and Argentinean recognition.

The PA. Brazil and Argentina are engaging on a flight of fantasy because there are no “1967 borders”. There currently exists what Israeli Cabinet Minister Benny Begin describes as

“the totally artificial line of aggression which is expressed in the 1949 armistice demarcation line. It’s nothing more than that. It signified at the time the line of battle fatigue. That’s all.”

To define such armistice line as a “border” continues the fiction that has been regularly repeated by Abbas and by United Nations General Assembly resolutions. That does not make it a border. It never has been - and in the view of the United States - can never become a border for obvious reasons - 500000 Jews now live beyond those armistice lines where none lived in 1967 after all the Jews then living there had been driven out by six invading Arab armies in 1948.

Even more bizarre is the recognition which Brazil - and now Argentina - has afforded to

1. A PA President whose term of office has long expired

2. A PA Government which is un-elected after having ousted a Government that was elected

3. An area of territory that is neither under the administrative or security control of the PA but is currently controlled by Israel or Hamas

4.Two different territorial areas that are not contiguous and are ruled by two different Arab Governments each claiming to represent the people seeking independence.

Both Brazil and Argentina have by their perverse decisions given new meaning to the terms “Brazil Nuts” and "Argentinean Ants”.

Those countries which may be persuaded to follow these unprecedented acts of “recognition” - which run completely contrary to the requirements of international law - should think carefully before jumping into the diplomatic quicksand that such decisions will inevitably create as precedents for others claiming “recognition” such as the Kurds, the Basques.the Tibetans and the Corsicans.

What Abbas hoped to achieve by slapping Obama in the face in this manner is difficult to grasp. Certainly such acts of recognition will get headlines - but effectively such “recognition” in practice and in law means nothing.

Thumbing your nose at an American President and causing him considerable loss of face as Abbas has chosen to do - is not bound to go unnoticed or unpunished by Obama.

It would be no surprise if Obama now decided to disengage from any further effort to bring Israel and the PA back to the negotiating table.

The distinct impression has already been created that Obama could never come up with a letter that would induce Israel to freeze building activity in the West bank and East Jerusalem. Two weeks of trying to draft it has apparently eluded the State Department and its host of diplomats. Abbas has ensured that the letter will now be a much longer time in coming - if ever at all.

Abbas will only have himself to blame. Like so many of his predecessors he has once again proved the adage eloquently expressed by former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.