Palestine and State Sovereignty

(At least you tried Obama.)

Trying to research the Palestinian Problem without using bias sources was like getting blood from a stone. It seems like everyone has an opinion on who are the Good Guys™ and Bad Guys™ but the real question is: what does this mean in terms of state sovereignty?

Like most problems in the Middle East and Arab, the origins of the Palestinian problem can be traced back to Western Colonialism.  After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire mandates (i.e. trusteeships) were established by the UK and France over areas including Palestine, and although these mandates were dropped in the 1930s/40s western influence remained strong. The declaration in 1948 of the the State of Israel was seen by the Arab states as an expansion of colonialism from the West- actually very few of the yishuv themselves supported the idea of binationalism. The Arab-Israeli wars that followed lead to many Palestinians becoming refugees in neighbouring Arab states and only served to worsen the anger and humiliation expressed by the Arab world. The opinion of many is that an independent Israel came at the cost of dismantling the Palestinian community. 

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a question of external sovereignty, Palestine seeks to establish a sovereign state in territory which is claimed by Israel, which Israel perceives as a threat to it's sovereignty. In 1964 the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization did strengthen the concept of Palestine as a nation, but it was the Palestinian Authority that gave Palestinians a defined territory and effective government- two of the four qualities that a state needs to be classified as a state as defined by the Montevideo Convention. Having said that, it still lacked de jure (lawful/right) sovereignty. 

The UN plays a significant role in legitimating the status of a state. The UN Security Council did not endorse Palestine's transition into a non-member observer state which means it isn't a full member of the UN and, consequently, cannot claim statehood. Although, in 2013, 132 members of the UN recognized the Palestine as a state. 

As for resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it must be noted that limited progress in finding a solution is partly because both sides favour military solutions over political ones. Having said that, those who argue the case of Palestine being granted statehood tend to favour the two-state solution. They are of the opinion that by continuing to deny Palestine statehood we worsen the hostility towards Israel and, in doing so, worsen relations between the West and Islam. 

Furthermore, there are a range of practical implications when establishing a Palestinian state. Firstly, the Palestinian Authority is divided between Hamas (controls the Gaza Strip) and Fatah (governs the West Bank).

(Hamas and Fatah as snakes devouring each other. Snakes are cool.)

Additionally, if a Palestinian state was established according to the 1967 borders this would result in roughly 500,000 Israelis technically living in a different country. Although most Israelis seem to have more concern about the two-state solution, they fear Palestinian hatred for Israel would lead to a sovereign Palestine posing a threat to the survival of Israel.