The United Nations has not recognized the so-called state of Palestine because it fails to meet the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.
U.N. members held a conference last month to discuss the “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.” It was spearheaded by France and Saudi Arabia, and sought to define the conditions that the Palestinian state must meet to be recognized. Regardless, French President Emmanuel Macron said that he will recognize a Palestinian state in September.
Among those countries participating in the conference for statehood were Great Britain, Canada, Norway, Qatar, Spain and Turkey. Yet declaring such a state would violate numerous international laws.
The United Nations has not recognized the so-called state of Palestine because the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian autonomous territories do not meet the conditions for statehood required by international law under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), as it does not have a defined territory, effective government or control a territory independently. Further, Article XVII (sections 1 to 8) of the 1995 Interim Agreement between Israel and the PLO limits the Palestinians’ jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities.
France and its allies, however, want to establish new conditions in violation of the provisions of international law. Trying to sidestep the Montevideo Convention is, in fact, the first violation of international law by countries that claim to respect and defend such law scrupulously.
According to an interim peace agreement signed with Israel in 1995, the PLO agreed not to have diplomatic relations with other countries. France and its allies are joining forces to violate this international agreement, which would make it the second violation.
And as the PLO is a terrorist organization that finances terrorists, by supporting its statehood ambitions, those pushing for statehood would be violating international laws relating to the fight against terrorism. This would be the third violation of international law.
Furthermore, Article XXXI (6) of the 1995 Interim Agreement between Israel and the PLO reads: “Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP (Declaration of Principles). Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.”
Israel has never relinquished its rights to the Gaza, Judea and Samaria. There is no factual or legal basis for the PLO or the coalition members to claim otherwise, making this the fourth violation of international law.
The Interim Agreement provides that the final status of the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority will be negotiated between the parties. Third-party countries, such as France and England, have no right or title to negotiate instead of Israel. This is an illegal interference in Israel’s rights, making it the fifth violation of international law.
France and its allies seek to impose on the Jewish state what no country would dare impose on any non-Jewish state, namely to confiscate part of its territory, to recognize another state on part of its territory, and, it seeks to apply sanctions if Israel does not comply. They intend to act like brigands and take possession of a land that does not belong to them and never has. This would be the sixth violation of international law.
Yet, France and Great Britain cannot legally recognize a “Palestinian” Arab-Muslim state on the territory of the Jewish national homeland as defined in the British Mandate. The countries are bound by the prior treaties of San Remo, Sèvres and Lausanne, which they signed, as well as by the content of the British Mandate. France and Great Britain voted for the British Mandate along with 48 other member states of the League of Nations. Such recognition would constitute the seventh violation of international law and a violation of numerous treaties and agreements.
Any recognition of a “Palestinian” state on the territory of the Jewish national homeland, even if it is not precisely defined, is a violation of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the United Nations and its member states from undermining the provisions of the mandates established by the League of Nations, this would be the eighth violation of international law.
To make matters worse, France will invite states to recognize a Palestinian state and thus violate Article 80 of the U.N. Charter within the very premises of the United Nations, which is an aggravating circumstance.
Mandates of the League of Nations grant rights to the peoples covered by these mandates. These rights cannot be modified and apply even after the mandates terminate. Rights to the territory designated as the Jewish national home still belong to the Jewish people, and amputating all, or part, of this territory and granting it to terrorists or anyone else would violate the rights of all the Jews in the world and serve as the ninth violation of international law.
On Sept. 13, 2007, after 20 years of negotiations, France and Great Britain voted in favor of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This declaration specifies that Indigenous Peoples have a right to their lands and resources.
The Jewish people are the indigenous people of Gaza, Judea and Samaria. They therefore have a right to this land. By denying the Jewish people the rights that have been voted on, the coalition will be violating the rights that they have recognized for indigenous peoples, marking the 10th violation of international law.
