The word ‘state’ conjures up many associations including sovereignty, territory, self-determination and institutions as well as a monopoly over the use of force. Dating back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention in the affairs of other states and the right to self-determination have become firmly entrenched in the global state system today. In order to assess whether a nation or territory can be considered a state, it is a given that these concepts must be considered for the very definition of a ‘state’ includes these. Can a state be considered a state if its sovereignty is incomplete i.e. it may be de facto but not de jure or vice versa? The state may have the accepted right to control over its territory but if it lacks the means to exercise that, its sovereignty is limited. Following on from this, it is commonly accepted that for a state to be so, it must have a clearly demarcated territory in which its citizens are able to reside and the principle of sovereignty is to apply to that. Further, that state should also be able to meet the needs of its citizens and a degree of independence and self-sufficiency is required.
Based on the above definition of a state, one can easily come to the conclusion that the OccupiedTerritoriesof Gazaand the West Bank including Jerusalemdo not, in the current state of play, constitute a state. On 15th November 1988, the PLO declared the State of Palestine comprising the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital. However Jerusalem remains land occupied by the Israelis with the West Bank and Gaza only administratively controlled by the Palestinian Authority meaning the state was never de facto. A huge reliance on international aid to keep the economies of both the West Bank andGaza alive (theUnited States and the European Union gave $7.7 billion in 2008-2010) has made theOccupiedTerritories far from self-sufficient. Basic services continue to be under developed and unable to meet the needs of the Palestinian population. B’tselem has noted that Israel receives nearly 80% of the water from the Mountain Aquifer system and 100% of the water from the Jordan Basin despite the two resources being fully shared. Travel restrictions, roadblocks and work regulations hinder growth opportunities and contribute to high levels of unemployment with 32.6% of the workforce of the West Bank and Gaza being unemployed in 2004. The continuing expansion of Israeli settlements into the West Bank along with the annexing of said land makes it clear to see how the ‘State’ ofPalestine is indeed not much more than a state on paper.
So if the bid for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations was to be successful, what would this mean for both the Palestinians and the Israelis as well as the wider Middle East and beyond?
For the Palestinians, UN recognition of a Palestinian state would be a means to influence the terms of negotiation and discussion. Widespread acceptance of the state would influence the parameters of international debate and would give the PA more of a multilateral relationship with the international community beyond theUnited States. Current discourses surrounding the peace process and development are hindered by the unclear legal standing of the Palestinians. By clearly establishing the State of Palestine, the theoretical principles underpinning the state system would, at least in theory, apply toPalestineand thus Israel-Palestine relations. The Palestinians would thus be entitled to utilise force for self defence and as Husam Zomlot (a senior Fatah official) has already said, the legally recognised state would be a deterrent for attack. In terms of tangible, on the ground effects however, there may be few. Water shortages are unlikely to be resolved immediately as are the problems of unemployment and reliance on aid given the depth of reliance on external help. However, recognition of the legitimacy of a Palestinian state would bring renewed vigour to the discussions around Israeli occupation and its legitimacy and would thus contribute significantly to reviving the somewhat ailing peace process.
For the Palestinian diaspora scattered across the world with nearly 2 million refugees residing in Jordan, over 400,000 in Lebanon and just under 500,000 in Syria, a two-state solution may have a murky effect. For a Palestinian state to be recognised would most likely mean to accept one state as Palestinian and therefore an Arab state whilst the other would be an Israeli-Jewish state. Would this then mean that refugees who wished to return to ‘Palestine’ would return to the newly established Palestine within the 1967 borders and not to their original homes of before 1948? And how would a new state affect Palestinians with Israeli citizenship living inIsrael?
Given the large numbers of refugees in the surrounding countries, any movements of this community would impact on the demographics of the host countries. In Lebanon where Palestinian refugees make up 10% of the population and are mainly Muslim, this is enough to tip the balance between the Muslim Lebanese and the Christian Lebanese population. This is an important consideration in a confessional state still coming to terms with its recent brutal civil war. In neighbouring Jordan, where Palestinian Jordanians outnumber ethnic Jordanians are entitled to Jordanian citizenship, a Palestinian state may not have much economic motivation but may have social motivation on Jordanian Palestinians to return. Likewise in Syria, the Palestinian community in Damascus is well established with many refugees owning businesses and gaining university education but are again, denied the right to citizenship, as they are in Lebanon. If Palestinians from Syria were to return to Palestine, the demographics of Damascus would alter and the economy would be adversely affected. Over inEgypt, the overthrow, arrest and trying ofEgypt’s dictatorial leader of 29 years has resulted in the deterioration of Egyptian-Israeli relations. The shared Rafah border betweenEgyptandGaza, having been a source of contention in the past, would be in the sole control of the Palestinians and the Egyptians;Israelwould have little say over this as it would be the border between two sovereign states. The rise in popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is undoubtedly a cause for concern for Israel but with the establishment of a Palestinian state, part of the basis for their and Hamas’s (as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) current ideology would be no more – the Palestinians would have their own state.
The ramifications of the ideological effect could be felt right across the world with radical ideologies revolving around the oppression endured by the stateless Palestinians losing one of the pillars propping up their arguments. Perhaps those who stand the most to gain from this internationally would be the United States and the European Union. Time and time again, the US and the EU have heard cries from the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that foreign policy in the Middle East and the ongoing stalemate in the Arab-Israeli conflict are the main motivations for such attacks. The State of Palestine may at least begin to serve to dismantle these ideologies. The utilisation of an international institution such as the UN to create a Palestinian state proper would lend support to the idea that international institutions and more specifically, the UN, are not irrelevant or useless as some claim. A significant step forward in the amelioration of the conflict through using international law and peaceful means would bolster the idea that change can come about through peaceful international multilateralism.
The real implications of a Palestinian state would depend very much on the terms on which the state would be established. With neither side, as of yet, showing any willingness to relinquish Jerusalem from any future plans and the right of return issue having not yet been fully and frankly resolved, such a discussion remains hypothetical and the situation difficult to predict. However, it would be fair to say that such a move could well be one of the most significant political events to occur in the foreseeable future.
PDF 
