Palestine is a STATE

Submitted by Ant Alloy (United Kingdom), Jan 13, 2013 at 15:45

Dear All

May I respectfully draw your attention to the following please.

* The UN view of the Palestinian Territories can be seen at
the following URL: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/OCH....

* 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.

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....

*** Resolution 694 (1991) - BINDING

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 obliga-tions 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 Pales-tinian 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
legitimate 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 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
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.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&ca

---

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".