According to Wikipedia, one hundred and forty-seven countries among the 197-member countries of the United Nations have recognized the State of Palestine. Now come a number of “Johnnies-come-lately” in the persons of Emmanuel Macron of France, Keir Starmer of Britain, and Mark Carney of Canada declaring the intention of their governments to recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming Annual Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly come this September, unless Israel agrees to certain conditions designed to put an end to the starvation and carnage in Gaza, ends the misappropriation of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank for the benefit of Jewish settlers, and agrees to a pathway toward the final resolution of the Palestinian Question that will result in a two-state solution!

Is this new push by some Western countries to finally do something about the Palestinian Question something or another wholesome nothing-burger? I submit: It is a fat quarter-pounder of nothing! First, the idea that the Gaza War should end with a pathway for a two-state solution is utter nonsense: There is already a two-state solution. Have not 147 countries recognized already the State of Palestine? Second, the very idea that the UK, France and Canda would not proceed with the recognition of Palestine if Israel met certain demands highlights the insincerity of these governments toward resolving the Palestinian Question in general.

Why grandstand now? Answer: These gentlemen can no longer stomach the pictures of emaciated and dying infants that are beamed into the dining room of their upright residences while they are enjoying their nutritious meals. Just as the reporting from the front during the Vietnam War galvanized the public in the United States, sparking the anti-war movement, so has the reporting from Gaza offended the conscience of most of the civilized world.

Assuming (and that is a very big assumption) Netanyahu agrees to a ceasefire, agrees with flooding Gaza with relief, and agrees to a pathway toward a two-state solution, will anyone in their right mind believe that this last condition will ever be actualized? Instead of using recognition of the State of Palestine as leverage, perhaps a more effective tool of persuasion would be cut off immediately all military shipments and  financial assistance to Israel, and institute a trade embargo of the county.

The BBC/Persian’s story about the British threat to recognize the State of Palestine notes that some believe that the recognition thusly extended maybe in violation of international law. https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cp3ezy1wd34o.

What? International law, did someone say international law? The only relevant international legal instrument in this regard is the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (of 1967), For all these years, the Western Powers have stood by as Israel frustrated its implementation. By the way, this piece of paper still carries weight with the Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, as the starting point for the resolution of the Palestinian Question. There are other international legal considerations to bear in mind when we talk of states and recognition of states.

The international law governing statehood and recognition of states is pretty straight forward.

What’s a state? As families are the building blocks of society, so are states in the family of nations. There are four requirements for a country to be viewed as a sovereign state in international law. First, and foremost, the entity must have a defined territory, with generally recognizable, recognized or guaranteed boundaries. Second, the entity must have a permanent population. Third, the polity must have a government that is effectively in control of the territory and its population - in that the government’s writ runs in the land and among the people. These three requirements confer on a country a sovereignty that is “internal” in nature. A fourth requirement that elevates a county to statehood in international law is the country’s legal capacity to undertake and discharge international obligations. This legal capacity derives form the state’s independence, meaning that the state is not controlled by any other state. The term “sovereignty” means supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign State. In its internal dimension, a “sovereign” is one – person or office - that exercises supreme authority in a state. In its external dimension, the “sovereign” state is one that is not ruled by or subjected by another state. Therefore, independence (external) and self-government (internal) are features of a sovereign state in international law.

To what extent the so-called State of Palestine that 147 countries have recognized meets the attributes of statehood in international law is anyone’s guess. Have these 147 countries recognized a fiction, where the entity they have recognized has questionable boundaries; its population (at least before the Hamas War) was divided between adherents of Hamas and other jihadists and the Fattah; it has next to no internal sovereignty (it is occupied territory); and has little if any capacity to discharge  its international obligations (save what Israel agrees with).

What is recognition? The term “recognition” consists of two distinct acts: a political act and a legal act. The political or declaratory act of recognition of a state or government means that the recognizing state is willing to enter into political and other relations with the as-yet-not recognized state (candidate-state). This is an act that lies within the arbitrary decision of the recognizing state and it may be conditional or unconditional. However, the declaration of willingness to enter into political and other relations with the candidate-state does not constitute any concrete legal obligation. And, therefore, the declaration in itself has no legal consequence, although it may be of great importance politically, especially for the prestige of the candidate-state. Thus, the political act of recognition, since it has no legal effect whatsoever on the existence of the candidate-state as a state (not constitutive of the legal existence of the candidate-state). Political recognition presupposes the legal existence of a state that is being recognized. Hans Kelsen, “Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations,” 35 The American Journal of International Law 605 (October 1941).

The legal or constitutive act of recognition requires the pre-existence of a number of existential “facts” regarding the candidate-state. As states are subjects of international law, it is international law that determines if a state is a "state." The following conditions must attach to the community that is to be recognized as a state: The community must be politically organized and have a coercive, relatively centralized legal order (i.e., government). The order that constitutes the community must be effective for a certain clearly demarcated territory and for the individuals living in the territory. The community thus constituted must be independent; it must not be under the legal control of another community, equally qualified as a state. A community that meets these criteria is a "state" and therefore the recognition of a state is acceptance of the fact that a given community has satisfied these conditions. Hans Kelsen, “Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations,” 35 The American Journal of International Law 605 (October 1941).

The same inadequacies that plague the statehood nature of the State of Palestine as a matter of international law also call into question whether Fattah and any other Palestinian authority can claim entitlement to statehood as a matter of international law based on fulfillment of the requisite conditions under the constitutive recognition theory.

The only viable and practical solution to the Palestinian Question is for the United Nations to take control of Palestinian-inhabited territories under two separate trusteeships –one for the West Bank and the other for the Gaza Strip, with the intention of preparing these two communities toward self-government and legitimate statehood.

As I have argued in the past –https://www.academia.edu/9642265/The_Israeli_Palestinian_Question_Toward_a_Three_State_Solution – the two-state solution given the territorial separation of Gaza from the West Bank (with Israel’s Negev Desert in between them) is impractical. The differences between the Gazans and West Bank Palestinians is even more accentuated by the devastation and suffering experienced by the former.

Forgive the typos!