Palestine is a STATE
Reader comment on item: Is Jordan Palestine?
Submitted by Ant Alloy (United Kingdom), Jan 13, 2013 at 15:45
May I respectfully draw your attention to the following please.
* The UN view of the Palestinian Territories can be seen at
* The West Bank and East Jerusalem is occupied Palestine (bilaterally recognised by 132 nations in the world including India, China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Iceland).
* Palestine is officially a non-member State and recognised by the UN. 138 nations supported Palestine last November in its successful bid for statehood. France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Greece, Cyprus and Malta were among many European nations to support Palestine. Their vote for Palestine was important as were those cast by India, China, Russia, Brazil and New Zealand who supported Palestine too. The Secretary General of the UN and Vatican Church welcomed the re-birth of Palestine.
* However, Palestine (West Bank and East Jerusalem) is still illegally held and sadly Israel's Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu 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 in 2011 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's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.
* UN Resolutions specify Israel's illegal hold of the Palestinian Territories to be a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention and as such is a War Crime under international law. More so now, that settlements are being placed in another nation.
*** UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August
The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980);
*** Resolution 694 (1991) - BINDING
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2989th meeting on 24
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),
Having learned with deep concern and consternation that
1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of
2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the
3. Decides to keep the situation under review.
*** Resolution 672 (1990) - BINDING
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on 12
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),
Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the
Taking into consideration the statement of the
1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8
2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the
3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide
4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the
24th April 2012 – UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:
"I strongly condemn the Israeli government's decision
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 settlements 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
* 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
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (51) on this item
Comment on this item
You can help support Daniel Pipes' work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes